Public authorities cannot be compelled to pass illegal orders on ground of parity with illegal orders

Usha Mehta v. Govt. of A.P., (2012) 12 SCC 419
 Constitution of India 
 Arts. 14 and 299 - Claim to equal treatment on basis of forged document - Non-tenability - Lease deed of public land
purportedly executed by Estate Officer found to be a forged document - Government denied regularisation of said lease
deed on ground that grant of lease in favour of appellant was unauthorised and entire transaction was a result of fraud
and collusion and that any claim based on forged document cannot be acted upon - Similar lease deeds executed by
same Estate Officer however, were regularised on payment of market value - Whether discriminatory - Division Bench of
High Court upholding finding of Single Judge that appellant's claim was founded on a forged document and held that
failure to comply with conditions enumerated in Art. 299 nullifies contract and renders it void and unenforceable - Held,
no right is created in appellant on strength of a forged document - Further held, in view of absence of any evidence to
prove that other cases were of identical nature with appellant's case High Court was right in not entertaining appellant's
bald plea of discrimination - State Government directed to take possession of the land, (2012) 12 SCC 419-A 
 Constitution of India 
 Art. 14 - Nature and scope - Concept of equality - Parity with illegality - Impermissibility - Reiterated, Art. 14 cannot be
invoked to claim parity with any irregularity or illegality - Concept of equality is a positive concept - Public authorities
cannot be compelled to pass illegal orders on ground of parity with illegal orders
,
 Constitution of India 
 Art. 14 - Distribution of State Largesse/ Government Contracts - Public policy - Grant of licence, allotment of land,
distribution of largesse, etc. - Proper basis for - Reiterated, decision of State to confer such benefit must be founded on
sound, transparent, discernible and well-defined policy known to public at large and in a non-discriminatory and nonarbitrary manner - State cannot exclude other eligible persons in considering allotment - If State instrumentalities treat
such exercise as a private venture, it would amount to a flagrant violation of principles of equality, (2012) 12 SCC 419-C

Print Page