SEN - (1.) THESE petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution are by petitioner No. 1, the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of printing and publishing the national newspaper the Indian Express (Delhi Edition) from the Express Buildings at 9-10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, held on a perpetual lease from the Union of India under a registered indenture of lease dt. Mar. 17, 1958. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner No. 2, the Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. of which petitioner No. 3 Ram Nath Goenka is the Chairman of the Board. of Directors. Petitioner No. 4 Nihal Singh was the then Editor-in-Chief of the Indian Express and petitioner No. 5 Romesh Thapar was the Editor of the Seminar published from the Express Buildings.
(2.) RESPONDENT 1 is the Union of India, 2 is Jagmohan, Lt. Governor of Delhi, 3 the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 4 the Zonal Engineer (Buildings), 5 the Land and Development Officer, etc. The petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of a notice of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease issued by the Engineer Officer, Land and Development Office, New Delhi dt. 10/03/1980 purporting to be on behalf of the lessor i.e. the Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing, New Delhi. The said notice required petitioner No. 1, the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi to show cause why the Union of India should not re-enter upon and take possession of the demised premises i.e. plots Nos. 9 and 10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg together with the Express Buildings built thereon under Cl. 5 of the aforesaid indenture of lease dt. 17/03/1958 for the alleged breach of Cls. 2(14) and 2(5) of the lease-deed. They also challenge the validity of an earlier notice dt. 1/03/1980 issued by the Zonal Engineer (Buildings), Municipal Corporation, City Zone, Delhi to petitioner No. 1, the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi to show cause why the aforesaid buildings being unauthorized should not be demolished under Ss. 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The petitioners allege that the impugned notices of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease and of threatened demolition of the Express Buildings at Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi which constitute the nerve-centre of the newspaper the Indian Express which has the largest combined circulation among all the daily newspapers in India and is published simultaneously from eleven cities in the country, are wholly mala fide and politically motivated. They further allege that the impugned notices constitute an act of personal vendetta against the Express Group of Newspapers in general, and Ram Nath Goenka, Chairman of the Board of Directors in particular, and are violative of Arts. 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. We are informed that a teleprinter is installed at the Express Buildings at Bahadurshah Zafar Marg from where the Delhi edition of the Indian Express is published and the editorials, editorial policies and leading articles are transmitted to ten cities all over India from where the other editorial of the Indian Express are published simultaneously every day, namely, Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bombay, Chandigarh, Cochin, Hyderabad, Madras, Madurai, Vijaywada and Vizianagaram.
(3.) THE issues raised in this case are far-reaching in significance to the maintenance of our federal structure of Government. It necessarily involves a claim by the Lt. Governor of Delhi that he has power and authority to administer properties of the Union of India within the Union Territory of Delhi which he is called upon to administer. THE questions presented are whether the Lt. Governor of Delhi could usurp the functions of the Union of India, Ministry of Works and Housing and direct an investigation into the affairs of the Union of India i.e. question the legality and propriety of the action of the then Minister for Works and Housing in the previous Government at the Centre in granting permission to the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. to construct the new Express Building with an increased FAR of 360 with a double basement for installation of a printing press for publication of a Hindi newspaper on the western portion of the demised premises i.e. plots Nos. 9 and 10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi with the Express Buildings built thereon. 5A. THE Lt. Governor asserts that he has the power and authority to administer the properties of the Union of India in the Union Territory of Delhi. THE further question is whether the grant of sanction by the then Minister for Works and Housing and the consequential sanction of building plans by him of the new Express Building wag contrary to the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plans framed under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and the Municipal bye-laws, 1959 made under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and therefore the lessor i.e. the Union of India had the power to issue a notice of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease under Cl. 5 of the indenture of lease dt. 17/03/1958 and take possession of the demised premises together with the Express Buildings built thereon and the Municipal Corporation had the authority to direct demolition of the said buildings as unauthorized construction under Ss. 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. THE ultimate question is whether the threatened action which the petitioners characterise as arbitrary, illegal and irrational was violative of Art. 19(1)(a) read with Art. 14 of the Constitution. History of the matter : Facts of the case The facts are somewhat involved and present a feature which is rather disturbing. It would be convenient to set forth the facts relating to the impugned notices.;