Judgment : The petitioner, a practising advocate at Madras, has filed this writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation. 2. In or about 1967 an extent of 153.21 acres of land at Vilankurichi village, Coimbatore District was acquired for the establishment of the Government Medical College at Coimbatore. In 1993, the Government decided to form an amusement park by the Social Welfare Department at Coimbatore and sought for opinion of the District Collector for suitable land. The District Collector sent a proposal stating that an extent of 25.19 acres abetting the national highways in Survey Nos.451/1,452 and 453 forms part of the Medical College can be taken for the purpose of establishing the amusement park at Coimbatore. The Government accepted the proposal and passed G.O.Ms. No.900, Revenue (M2) Department, dated 110. 1994 transferring the land from the Medical Department to Social Welfare Department. Thereafter the Government has decided to entrust the land to the Tamil Nadu Corporation for Development of Women (hereinafter refer to as ‘MAHAM’) and passed an order to that effect in G.O.Ms. No.192, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 7. 1994 and the said Corporation will take up the project. 3. After careful analysis in respect of the investment involved in the project, the said MAHAM felt due to financial constraint the MAHAM is not in a position to take up the project. But, however, to give effect to the project, the MAHAM thought that it will be better either to enter into joint sector venture or profit sharing basis by giving the project to private individuals or to lease out the land on long term basis. The Government after considering the relevant factors in respect of the three proposals submitted by the MAHAM finally accepted for the proposal of long term lease. 4. Thereafter on 8. 1994 the MAHAM called for tenders to set up a hotel, shopping acrade and amusement items in the complex for the education and entertainment of children. The tender notices were published all over Tamil Nadu in Tamil newspaper and was published in Hindu also. The Government passed G.O.Ms. No.254, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (S.W.V.) Department, dated 29. 1994, accepting the proposal of MAHAM to let out an area of five acres to private parties for putting up hotel with a view to mobilize funds. The tender notices were published all over Tamil Nadu in Tamil newspaper and was published in Hindu also. The Government passed G.O.Ms. No.254, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (S.W.V.) Department, dated 29. 1994, accepting the proposal of MAHAM to let out an area of five acres to private parties for putting up hotel with a view to mobilize funds. The Government also permitted MAHAM to let out the said area of five acres to New Kenilworth Hotel Private Limited who got themselves impleaded as the nineth respondent in this writ petition. The Government passed another order G.O.Ms. No.277, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (S.W.V.) Department, dated 20.10.1994 leasing out five acres of land to M/s.Jenneys Residency Private Limited who is the sixth respondent in this writ petition. The Government further passed an order permitting MAHAM to lease out the land of 10 acres to Jumbo’s Joy Park Limited, the eighth respondent in this writ petition. On 1. 1995 the Government had passed the above said orders permitting the MAHAM to lease out to the respondents 6,8 and 9 since the MAHAM had accepted the tenders pursuant to the tender notification dated 8. 1994. 5. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for mandamus directing the respondents to form the Annai Sandhya Theme Park, as proposed in G.O.Ms. No.900, Revenue (M2) Department, dated 110. 1993 and consequently forbearing the respondents from dereserving or allotting the same for any other purpose other than for the formation of Annai Sandhya Theme Park. 6. Mr.R.Gandhi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had raised the following contentions: The Government has passed G.O.Ms. No.900, Revenue (M2) Department, dated 110. 1993 placing an extent of 25.19 acres of land in Survey Nos.451/1, 452 and 453 in Vilankurichi village with the Social Welfare Department for establishment of the amusement park. Now without establishing the amusement park, the Government has decided to allot the land to three private parties for construction of hotels and shopping arcade. Since the purpose for which the land has been allotted to seventh respondent MAHAM is only for the purpose of establishing the amusement park for children which is a public purpose that has been given a go by, by the Government by permitting the seventh respondent to lease out the land to individuals. The construction of hotel and shopping arcade cannot be considered to be the public purpose. The construction of hotel and shopping arcade cannot be considered to be the public purpose. Now the change of purpose will amount to violation of G.O.Ms. No.900, Revenue (M2) Department, dated 110. 1993 and when once the land has been earmarked for public purpose, it cannot be let out or allotted for private purpose. The action of the respondents 1 and 7 in allotting the lands to private individuals is in violation of the original G.O. Moreover, the residents of the locality have not been afforded an opportunity to represent their case before over any modification of the original scheme is made. Hence the writ petition has been filed for directing the Government to use the land only for the purpose of establishing the amusement park. 7. The learned Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 4 contended that Annai Sandhya Theme Park was registered as a company under the Companies Act, 1956 for setting up of an amusement complex at Coimbatore. The main object of the project is to generate funds which may be utilised for taking up projects for the development of children and women with special emphasis on rehabilitating orphans, handicapped and poor widows. Only for the welfare of women and children the MAHAM was formed. Hence an extent of 25.19 acres of land was taken from the medical department and handed over to social welfare department and was entrusted with the MAHAM for their use in order to raise funds for the welfare scheme. .8. After having due consideration with regard to the financial commitments, involved in the establishment of the amusement park, MAHAM felt that it may not be possible for them to invest so much of amount as it will be a financial constraint on their part. When the land has been allotted to MAHAM for the welfare scheme and when MAHAM felt that the initial commitment in order to realise the profit from out of the land for the use of the welfare scheme may not be possible, the other modes of getting the income from the property was discussed. Finally it was resolved to lease out the property and derive income for MAHAM. The joint venture and profit sharing were thought of and found that they are not profitable. By leasing out the land, the MAHAM is deriving an income of Rs.30.52 lakhs per annum. Finally it was resolved to lease out the property and derive income for MAHAM. The joint venture and profit sharing were thought of and found that they are not profitable. By leasing out the land, the MAHAM is deriving an income of Rs.30.52 lakhs per annum. This amount is being received without any commitment on the part of either the State Government or MAHAM. This entire amount is to be utilised for the welfare schemes for MAHAM. At one stage it was also considered to sell the land and invest the sale consideration. That proposal was also negatived as the Government would lose the land itself. Except giving the land on lease, the respondents 1 and 7 have no financial commitments in order to argument the income for MAHAM. and hence this is the only beneficial made to raise funds. 9. So far as the alteration of the purpose is concerned, total extent of 25.19 acres of land had been transferred to Social Welfare Department which in turn place in the hands of the seventh respondent for utilisation. Of this 10 acres is being utilised for the amusement park and the eighth respondent make the entire facility and arrangement for the park on lease basis and five acres of land being leased out for hotel complex to the nineth respondent and another five acres of land is leased to sixth respondent for having a shopping complex and Club. The scheme of amusement park has not been given a go by. The Government has thought to restrict the area for use of amusement park, considering the management involved therein. The another five acres of land is available in reserve for the development of park. So far as the hotel project and the shopping complex are concerned, it is also part of the scheme of amusement park. While the children will be engaged in the amusement park, the elders who bring the children can do their shopping without wasting their time and it is only a multi-purpose project to save time for the public. Once the park gets importance, it is quite natural that the people in and around the City may visit the park and some who can afford may want to stay over night and only for this purpose the hotel is also annexed with the scheme. Once the park gets importance, it is quite natural that the people in and around the City may visit the park and some who can afford may want to stay over night and only for this purpose the hotel is also annexed with the scheme. So far as the leasing out of the property is concerned, it has been done by calling for tenders and no private individual has been given any importance or priority among the tenderers as alleged by the petitioner. The scheme is not for the benefit of any individual. .10. The learned Advocate General further contended that the petitioner, who is a practising advocate at Madras, cannot file the writ petition on behalf of the residents of Coimbatore and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, the Public Interest Litigation is entertained only on behalf of those who are not able to come before court by themselves. The scheme has been announced in April, 1993 in the papers and wide publicity has been given and when no resident of Coimbatore has challenged the scheme, the petitioner’s claim that he has filed this writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation for the benefit of Coimbatore residents cannot be sustained. This is not a case of complaining any violation of fundamental right of any individual. 11. Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of eighth respondent contended that so far as the eighth respondent is concerned, 10 acres of land has been leased out to them for establishing the amusement park for children. As per G.O.Ms. No.900, dated 110. 1993, the eighth respondent is entitled to establish the amusement park and the purpose for which the lease has been granted to the eighth respondent is in conformity with the said G.O.Ms. No.900 and as such the petitioner cannot have any grievance. 12. Mr.P.S.Raman, the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent contended that 25.19 acres of land is placed in the hands of the seventh respondent MAHAM and it is the policy of the Government how best the land could be utilised to raise funds for the benefit of the MAHAM. Since the MAHAM has been formed for the welfare of women and children. The policy decision of the Government may not be challenged in the writ proceeding. Since the MAHAM has been formed for the welfare of women and children. The policy decision of the Government may not be challenged in the writ proceeding. Further the land has been leased out to the sixth respondent for construction of shopping arcade and to have the Club. The shopping complex and the Club facility is only an infrastructure for the visiting public of the amusement park and hence it also forms part of the scheme of the amusement park. Further the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches, since the scheme has been announced in April, 1993 and the petitioner has filed this writ petition after everything was over and his client has executed a lease deed with the seventh respondent on 210. 1994 and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. 13. Mr.A.R.L. Sundaresan, the learned counsel appearing for the nineth respondent has adopted the argument of the other learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 14. The points that are to be determined in this writ petition are: .(i) Whether the Government and the seventh respondent are entitled to lease out the land to private individual? .(ii) Whether the construction of hotel and shopping complex is in conformity with the original scheme, as formulated in G.O.Ms. No.900, dated 110. 1993? (iii) Whether the petitioner has locus standi to maintain the writ petition? (iv) Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches? 15. At the outset the issue No.(iii) can be taken. The petitioner, though he is a native of Coimbatore, for the past more than 10 years has settled in Madras and practising at the High Court of Judicature in Madras. When the petitioner is having his practice at Madras, he can be considered to be visitor for Coimbatore. He cannot be considered to be a permanent resident of Coimbatore. An individual is entitled to bring to the notice of the court by way of Public Interest Litigation wherever the fundamental right of an individual or group of persons is violated. In such cases, it is not necessary that the person aggrieved alone file the writ petition. He cannot be considered to be a permanent resident of Coimbatore. An individual is entitled to bring to the notice of the court by way of Public Interest Litigation wherever the fundamental right of an individual or group of persons is violated. In such cases, it is not necessary that the person aggrieved alone file the writ petition. But wherever any violation of statutory provision is involved, then the resident of the local area can bring to the notice of this Court by way of Public Interest Litigation in respect of such violation. In such cases, it cannot be said that any pro bono publico residing anywhere in India can file a writ petition. 16. However, Mr .R.Gandhi, the learned Senior Counsel referred to a judgment to support his contention that the petitioner has locus standi to file the writ petition. In the case reported in Dalavai, R.R. v. The Indian Overseas Bank, 1990 Writ L.R. 116, the petitioner challenged the activities of the first respondent in diverting the funds to overseas branches and advancing loans indiscriminately whereby uninvestigated business concerns who offered worthless securities or no security and the said action is contrary to the banking regulations governing the corporate system of banking in India. This Court relying upon earlier Judgment of Supreme Court reported in Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2602: (1977)1 S.C.R.1072: (1977)1 S.C.W.R. 515, has held that there is not difficulty in holding that the petitioner has locus standi. The court further observed as follows: "In this country, public interest movement has been almost entirely initiated and nurtured by the Apex Court. Being aware of the limitations of legalism, the Supreme Court in the main and the High Courts to some extend for the last decade and a half did their best to bring law into the service of the poor and down-trodden under the banner of Public Interest Litigation. The range is wide enough to cover from bonded labour to prison conditions and from early trial to environmental pollution. It is not confined to enforcement of fundamental rights of an individual or a group of persons, but would take in the rights of the public at large. One of its distinctive characteristics is liberalisation of the rules of standing." In the reported case, the subject involved is in respect of the transactions done by the Nationalised Bank. It is not confined to enforcement of fundamental rights of an individual or a group of persons, but would take in the rights of the public at large. One of its distinctive characteristics is liberalisation of the rules of standing." In the reported case, the subject involved is in respect of the transactions done by the Nationalised Bank. Any one who is having an account any where in India in any one of the branches of the bank is entitled to question the nature of the business, if such business of the bank is contrary to the banking regulation. Further as the transfer of funds from India to the Foreign branches involves national economy, not only the person who is having the account in any branch of the bank but even an individual can challenge such transactions. Hence this case may not be helpful to the petitioner. 17. The learned Advocate General in support of his argument cited judgment reported in S.P. Gupta and others v. President of India and others, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149: 1981 S.C.C. (Supp.) 87. (familiarly known as Judges transfer case). Though the Supreme Court held that any member of public having insufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the construction or the law and seek enforcement of constitutional or legal provision. It has given a caution as follows: "But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective. Andre Rabie has warned that "political pressure groups who could not achieve their aims through the administrative process" and we might add, through the political process "may try to use the court to further their aims." These are some of the dangers in Public Interest Litigation which the court has to be careful to avoid. Andre Rabie has warned that "political pressure groups who could not achieve their aims through the administrative process" and we might add, through the political process "may try to use the court to further their aims." These are some of the dangers in Public Interest Litigation which the court has to be careful to avoid. It is also necessary for the court to bear in mind that there is a vital distinction between locus standi and justiciability and it is not every default on the part of the State or a public authority that is justiciable. The court must take care to see that it does not overstep the limits of its judicial function and trespass into areas which are reserved to the executive and the Legislature by the Constitution. It is fascinating exercise for the court to deal with Public Interest Litigation because it is a new jurisprudence which the court is evolving, a jurisprudence which demands Judicial statesmanship and high creative ability. The frontiers of public law are expanding far and wide and new concepts and cotrines which will change the complexion of the law and which were so far as embedded in the womb of the future, are beginning to be born. “ In the above’ cited case, the Supreme Court itself made it clear that the court must take care to see that it does not over step the limits of Judicial function and trespass into areas which are reserved to the executive, since it is not every default on the part of the State or a public authority that is justiciable. 18. In the case reported in Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 2060, the Supreme Court has dealt, with a letter written by the petitioner as writ petition under Art.32 of the Constitution of India, since the air pollution and ecological imbalance are involved. The court has held as follows: ”There was no fundamental right violation or could be violative if the allegations of the so-called champions on behalf of the Society are scrutinised. We must protect the society from the so called “Protectors’. This application is legally devoid of any merit or principles of public interest and public protection. The court has held as follows: ”There was no fundamental right violation or could be violative if the allegations of the so-called champions on behalf of the Society are scrutinised. We must protect the society from the so called “Protectors’. This application is legally devoid of any merit or principles of public interest and public protection. This application certainly creates bottlenecks in courts, which is an abuse of process of this Court.” In another judgment cited by the learned Advocate General reported in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1991 S.C.420: (1991)1 S.C.C. 598 : (1991)1 S.C.R. 5 , where it has been held as follows: “Public Interest Litigation contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community who are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law.” 19. Though the Supreme Court at the initial stages liberally entertained Public Interest Litigation, subsequent to 1990 it has given a cautious took to the Public Interest Litigation, as number of writ petitions have been filed for private interest or due to private rivalry or for some other extraneous considerations, in the Judgment reported in ShriSachidanandPandey v. State of W.B., A.I.R. 1987 S.C.1109, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “My purpose in adding these few lines of my own is to highlight the need for restraint on the part of the public interest litigants when they move courts. Public Interest Litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. If courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of Public Interest Litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions.... If courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of Public Interest Litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions.... It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action or when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the underdog and the neglected, I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self imposed restraint on public interest litigants.‘ ‘ 20. The petitioner’s contention in this Case is that the land to an extent of 25.19 acres taken away from the Medical College and transferred to Social Welfare Department should be used for the development of the amusement park alone and it cannot be used for other purposes. More over the petitioner has stated at the end of paragraph 4 of the affidavit as follows: ”The theme behind the development of the part was “Education through Entertainment.” Further, apart from providing facilities to the children, the said theme park also gives a lot of employment opportunities to many and will contribute to the state economy. Thus all the above said laudable objects have been now thrown to the ground for certain mala fide motives and for the benefit of private individual at the cost of the public. While that being so, it is now come to the knowledge of the petitioner and members of the local public that the said lands comprised in S.F.Nos.451/1,452, & 453 Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District has been allotted to 3 private parties for construction of hotels. The said action is per se illegal, without jurisdiction, unreasonable, arbitrary. While that being so, it is now come to the knowledge of the petitioner and members of the local public that the said lands comprised in S.F.Nos.451/1,452, & 453 Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District has been allotted to 3 private parties for construction of hotels. The said action is per se illegal, without jurisdiction, unreasonable, arbitrary. “ In paragraph 6 of the affidavit, the petitioner has stated as follows: ”In the instant case the land which has been reserved for an aumusement part for children is being handed over to private parties for construction of a hotel, a commercial venture. Therefore, the impugned action is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Government would have no jurisdiction to reclassify a particular area reserved for the purpose of an amusement part, against public interest. “ In the action of the Government, I am of the view that no fundamentals right of any individual any group of individuals are involved. Further, there is no averment in the affidavit as to how the environment or the ecological imbalance has occurred so as to affect the public residing in the locality. Hence, as no public interest is involved, the writ petition cannot be maintained as Public Interest Litigation. 21. Coming to the issue No.(i), we have to consider the purpose for which the land has been taken from the Medical College. G.O.Ms. No.900, Revenue (M2) Department, dated 110. 1993 runs as follows: ”....On the basis that the establishment of “Amusement Park” for children by the Social Welfare Department would be for a public purpose, it has been decided to accept the proposal of the Collector, Coimbatore to transfer the said land from Medical Department to Social Welfare Department. Taking into account the urgency of Social Welfare Department, the Government after careful consideration, directed that the Social Welfare Department be permitted to enter upon the land of an extent of 25.19 acres of Vilankurichi village of Coimbatore North Taluk, as detailed in the Annexure in this order, which belongs to Medical Department, for establishing an Amusement Park’ for children, pending a decision regarding the mode of conveyance of the land like transfer/lease and fixation of the land value. “ It is clearly stated that the land is being taken for the establishment of amusement park for children. Thereafter the Government passed another order G.O.Ms. “ It is clearly stated that the land is being taken for the establishment of amusement park for children. Thereafter the Government passed another order G.O.Ms. No.192, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 7. 1994 whereby instead of Social Welfare Department, the MAHAM will take up the project of establishment of amusement park for children. The essential features of the said G.O. reads as follows: ”The Government after careful consideration, pass the following orders regarding setting up of the Annai Sandhya Amusement Park at Coimbatore. .(a) MAHAM will take up the project .(b) The land will be given at nominal lease or outright transfer to MAHAM for an initial period beyond which the question of changing higher rates etc. can be gone into the terms for nominal lease or outright transfer to MAHAM will be decided separately. .(c) The project will be executed by MAHAM based on donor contributions. For large items it can incur a maximum total debt of Rs. 1.25 crores on this project. It will service this debt based on earnings. .(d) Small or amusement items costing less than Rs. 10 lakhs will be put by donors of such items as outright donations. Bigger items will be put up by borrowing from banks. .(e) The motel will be put up by Tourism Department if feasible. 3. The Managing Director, MAHAM shall take necessary further action on the light of the above orders. 4. The Government direct that on behalf of MAHAM, the Director of Social Welfare who is on the Board of Directors in MAHAM will personally attend to this work assisted by the representatives of Industries, Education and Information and Tourism Department. 5. MAHAM will make suitable arrangement to charge entrance fees, other fees, etc., so that the venture generates revenues to service the debt and lease rent. Surplus if any thereafter will be utilised for women’s development.“ The above said G.O. clearly mentions for the provision of hotel by the Tourism Department, if feasible. But, however after discussion, since MAHAM expressed the financial contraints on its part to make huge investment for the establishment of the project, the Government considered the matter and passed another order G.O.Ms. No.254, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW.V) Department, dated 29. 1994 pursuant to the letter of the Managing Director, MAHAM dated 9. 1995. But, however after discussion, since MAHAM expressed the financial contraints on its part to make huge investment for the establishment of the project, the Government considered the matter and passed another order G.O.Ms. No.254, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW.V) Department, dated 29. 1994 pursuant to the letter of the Managing Director, MAHAM dated 9. 1995. The relevant clauses of the said G.O. are as follows: ”The Managing Director, “MAHAM’ and the project Director,” MAHAM’ in the letter 4th cited have explained in detail that the “Annai Sandhya Amusement Park” could not be run solely by “MAHAM” due to financial constraints and will not be able to service the debts from out of the earnings from the “Annai Sandhya Amusement Park”. They have also sent proposal for letting out an area of five acres of land out of the total area of 25. 19 acres allotted, on long term lease to private parties for putting up a Hotel/ Motel Project with a view to moblise the required funds for setting up the amusement complex/ shopping arcade either on its own or as a joint venture in collaboration with private parties, on profit sharing/ lease basis. 3. After careful consideration, the Government, issue the following orders, in partial modification of the G.O.Ms. No.192, S.W. & N.M.P Department, dated 7. 1994. 4. Existing Paragraphs 2(a) and 2(e) shall be substituted with the following orders: 2(a) Maham will take up the project either on its own or as a Joint venture in collaboration with Private Parties on lease/ project sharing hasis. 2(e) The Motel/ Hotel project may be left to private sector by giving the base land required on long term lease basis. “MAHAM” will utilise the lease rent for carrying out developmnet activities in the Annai Sandhya Amusement Park, Coimbatore. 5. The Government also approve the proposal of the Managing Director, MAHAM and project Director, “MAHAM” to give an extent of Five Acres of land to M/s. The Kenilworth, Calcutta, the highest tenderer on lease for an initial period of 3 years (and renewable thereafter) at a lease rent of Rs.7.63 lakhs (Rupees Seven Lakhs and sixty three thousand only) per annum. The conditions of lease shall be finalised by “MAHAM” and lease agreement on standard pattern shall be concluded by the Managing Director, “MAHAM”. The conditions of lease shall be finalised by “MAHAM” and lease agreement on standard pattern shall be concluded by the Managing Director, “MAHAM”. Under this G.O. MAHAM was permitted to take up the project either on its own or as a joining venture in collaboration with private parties and the Motel/ Hotel project may be left to private sector by giving the base land on long term basis. Before over G.O.Ms. No. 254, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW. V) Department, dated 29. 1994 is passed, the MAHAM had made an advertisement calling for tenders for setting up hotel, for allotment of shops in the shopping arcade and providing amusement items in the complex for the education and entertainment of children. The advertisment ought to have been issued in anticipation of the Government Orders as the Board of Directors of MAHAM has decided that it is not possible for MAHAM to raise funds for nearly 1.25 Crores for the project. After calling for the tenders 10 acres of land is leased out to the eighth respondent for establishment of the amusement park and five acres each have been leased out to respondents 6 and 9 respectively for the establishment of shopping arcade and the hotel project. 22. As pointed out in the earlier portion of this order, the petitioner has filed the writ petition on the apprehension that the entire land is likely to be transferred to three private individuals for the purpose of construction of hotels, a commercial venture. That is the main reason why the petitioner has sought for the relief of mandamus directing the respondents to form Annai Sandhya Theme Park in the site selected and allotted by the first respondent in G.O.Ms. No.900, Revenue (M2) Department, dated 110. 1993. There is no averment in the affidavit challenging the action of the respondents 1 to 4 whereby they have decided to earmark a major portion for the establishment of the park and entrust the same to private individuals on lease basis. Equally there is no averment as to how the public of Coimbatore, including the petitioner are aggrieved in respect of the action of the respondents in leasing out the land to the respondents 6 and 9 for establishment of shopping arcade and hotel. The petitioner’s averment that the entire land is to be transferred for hotel project is not correct. .23. The petitioner’s averment that the entire land is to be transferred for hotel project is not correct. .23. The only other contention of the petitioner is that the establishment of the amusement park and keeping open space and parks for protecting the residential locality are matters of public importance and the same cannot be brushed aside. By giving the entire area to the private individuals for construction of hotels would amount to give a go by to the public project. This is not a case where the entire area is being given for the construction of hotels. Ten acres of land have been earmarked for amusement park, five acres for hotel project, five acres for shopping arcade and the remaining five acres and 19 cents is kept as a reserve for further development of the amusement park. 24. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the construction of hotel and the shopping arcade is not in conformity with the G.O.Ms. No.900, dated 110. 1993 as there is no provision in the said G.O. for the construction of hotel and shopping arcade. Even, the leasing out of the land to the eighth respondent for the purpose of establishment of the amusement park is not in conformity with the Government Order. The original proposal is only that the Social Welfare Department has to take up the project and that is how the land has been taken away from the Medical College. The latter decision to lease out the land to private individuals is to show favouritism to individuals and hence the use of the land will not amount to public purpose. 25. It is contended by the learned Advocate General that the project is only to benefit the MAHAM which is Tamil Nadu Corporation for Development of Women. Whatever the income derived from this project is entrusted to the said Corporation for the welfare schemes for women and children. Hence after careful analysis of the financial commitments involved in the project, it has been decided that it may not be possible for MAHAM to make such a huge investment by borrowing amounts. Hence, wisely it was decided to lease out the land and get income without any commitment by the Corporation itself. By leasing out the land, now the Corporation is getting an annual rental of Rs.30.52 lakhs and hence this is more beneficial for the Corporation. Hence, wisely it was decided to lease out the land and get income without any commitment by the Corporation itself. By leasing out the land, now the Corporation is getting an annual rental of Rs.30.52 lakhs and hence this is more beneficial for the Corporation. Nowadays the Government itself is thinking of privatisation of many Government Undertakings and hence there is nothing wrong on the part of the first and seventh respondents in leasing out the land. 26. So far as the hotel and shopping arcade are concerned, it is only an ancillary to the project amusement park and it cannot be said that so far as these two are concerned, the action of the respondents 1 and 7 is illegal. .27. A perusal of G.O.Ms. No.900, dated 110. 1993 reveals that an extent of 25.19 acres is placed with the Social Welfare Department for the public purpose i.e., the establishment of amusement park for children. Then subsequently under G.O.Ms. No.192, dated 7. 1994, the said lands were placed at the disposal of MAHAM, the seventh respondent Corporation. Thereafter, considering the Financial constraint for the establishment of the amusement park; the seventh respondent has decided to lease out the land to private individuals. By virtue of these proceedings, the lands have been earmarked for various activities and leased out to respondents 6,8 and 9. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted that the lands have been leased out only for the benefit of private individuals, there must be something on record to show that the authorities have acted to give preference only to respondents 6, 8 and 9. 28. First of all if the Government wants to benefit only the respondents 6, 8 and 9, they need not have waited for more than one year after vesting the land with’the Social Welfare Department. Immediately the Government could have called for the individuals and entrusted the work. There is no need for the transfer of land to MAHAM and thereafter the discussions with regard to the financial commitments by MAHAM and other follow up events. Apart from that, the Government as well as the seventh respondent has not shown any priority or preference to respondents 6, 8 and 9. It has been categorically stated in the counter that tenders have been called for in respect of the lease of the land. Apart from that, the Government as well as the seventh respondent has not shown any priority or preference to respondents 6, 8 and 9. It has been categorically stated in the counter that tenders have been called for in respect of the lease of the land. For the hotel project, New Kenilworth Hotel Private Limited the 9th respondent fulfilled all the conditions and after discussion five acres of land was given under lease basis for 33 years on an annual rent of Rs.7.63 lakhs. Likewise M/s. Jenneys Residency Private Limited, the sixth respondent fulfilled the conditions in respect of shopping arcade and five acres of land was given on lease basis for 33 years for an annual rent of Rs.7.63 lakhs. So for as the eighth respondent is concerned, they have been given 10 acres of land for the setting up of amusement park which is also a lease of 33 years with annual lease rent of Rs.15.26 lakhs. 29. When the tenders have been called for and the lease has been entered into by the authorities on the basis of the tender from among the tenderers, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. There is no allegation of nay mala fide in respect of the acceptance of the tender by respondents 1 to 5 and 7 of the tenders submitted by the respondents 6, 8 and 9. .30. From the above stated facts, it is clear that the petitioner has filed the writ petition under the impression that the entire land is being leased out to private individuals for construction of hotels. The said allegation has not been proved correct. The major portion of the land is being used for the amusement park and another portion is being used for hotel and shopping complex. With regard to the entrustment of the lease with respondents 6,8 and 9, there is no mala fide alleged and from the records it is clear that by proper advertisement, tenders have been called for and these respondents have been granted lease. If at all any person aggrieved would be the other contesting tenderer, Hence the entrustment of the land to the private individuals cannot be said to be either contrary to the G.O. or to give preference to the individuals. In view of the finding, the judgment referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner reported in Ramana v. LA. In view of the finding, the judgment referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner reported in Ramana v. LA. Authority of India, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1628, has no relevance to the facts of the present case. 31. Coming to issue No.(ii) it is clear that the seventh respondent has been entrusted with the land. As the income that would be derived from the project is for the use of the benefit scheme formulated by the seventh respondent, it is for the seventh respondent to decide as to how best they can use the land to get the utmost income. As stated already, the seventh respondent due to financial constraint was not in a position to make any investment and that too in large scale for the establishment of the amusement park. Hence, it was decided to lease out the land. .32. The further contention is that the project is only for the amusement park and the hotel construction and the shopping arcade cannot be provided for. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to two judgments. In Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1902: J.T. (1991)3 S.C. 172: (1991)4 S.C.C. 54 , the residents of the locality challenged the conversion of site earmarked for public park into a private nursing home. The Supreme Court held that it cannot be done. The place is earmarked as a public park under the lay out scheme. The other case reported in Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1995)2 S.C.C. 377 , also the land vested with the Municipality had been leased out for the construction of Dharmasala by the Government. The action of the Government was challenged on two grounds. One is the land vest with Municipality and as such the Government has no right and the other ground is the open land is meant for the purpose envisaged in the scheme and for the benefit of the citizens of the area for the protection and preservation of hygenie conditions of the local residents. The permission for construction of Dharmasala would be in contravention of the scheme and the same cannot be permitted. Both the cases may not be of any help to the counsel for the petitioner. In the case on hand, we are not concerned with any scheme. The larger extent of nearly 153 acres of land was acquired for the Coimbatore Medical College. Both the cases may not be of any help to the counsel for the petitioner. In the case on hand, we are not concerned with any scheme. The larger extent of nearly 153 acres of land was acquired for the Coimbatore Medical College. From out of which, on the recommendation of the Collector, an extent of 25.19 acres of land is taken away from the medical department and placed with the Social Welfare Department. So far as this aspect is concerned, the petitioner has not challenged even though subsequently he filed W.M.P. No. 16315 of 1995 to amend the prayer and the same was dismissed as not pressed on 8. 1995. .33. When once the land has been taken away and vest with the Social Welfare Department for the development of the same into an amusement park, it is for the concerned authorities to decide as to the extent over which the park has to be established and the utilisation of the remaining area. When once it is accepted that the project is to get income for the benefit of the seventh respondent for the welfare schemes, the authorities have to consider only on the basis of the income that would be derived from the utilisation of those lands. Further the seventh respondent has expressed the financial constraint to have the project established by themselves and hence it was decided to lease out the land. Where the question of lease is concerned the authorities have decided that for the time being 10 acres of land will be sufficient for the establishment of the amusement park, reserving five acres for future development. Hence, the remaining 10 acres cannot be kept vacant. In order to derive income, they decided the lease out the land to respondents 6 and 9. It could be seen that it is not contrary to any of the scheme and there is no averment as to how the environment and ecological imbalance occurred by the construction of the hotel and the shopping arcade. These 10 acres is not earmarked for the upliftment of life of the residents of the locality in accordance with any scheme. Only if any construction is put up contrary to any scheme, then the residents of that locality can be said to be aggrieved. These 10 acres is not earmarked for the upliftment of life of the residents of the locality in accordance with any scheme. Only if any construction is put up contrary to any scheme, then the residents of that locality can be said to be aggrieved. As the project is not contrary to any scheme, the respondents 1 to 5 and 7 are entitled to lease out the land to derive the income. When considering the 15 acres of land is being utilised for amusement park, the use of other 10 acres for the hotel and the shopping arcade will not in any event spoil the environmental or ecological surroundings. Moreover, the hotelier may maintian good garden which would be for the benefit of the residents of the area in addition to the amusement park. The shopping arcade also would serve a subserving purpose for the public for those who bring their children to the park. There is no ecological or environmental imbalance involved in this project. Hence, the construction of hotel as well as the shopping arcade is in conformity with the original scheme. 34. Issue No.(iv): It is contended by the respondents that as early as 8. 1994 advertisement has been issued in the English newspapers and in Tamil newspapers, calling for tenders for the hotel project, shopping arcade project as well as the amusement park project. Subsequent to the calling for the tenders, negotiations have been held and thereafter as early as October, 1994 the sixth respondent had entered into the lease agreement. The laches has to be considered from the facts of each and every case, because only from the facts available on record, it has to be seen as to whether the petitioner has acted bona fidely without any delay. When the advertisements have been made by giving wide publicity, calling for tenders with regard to the projects in early August, 1994 and after the parties have entered into agreement in October, the petitioner has approached this Court three months later. I am of the view that considering the facts of the present case, the petitioner has come to court belatedly. Immediately on the advertisements calling for tenders, he ought to have approached this Court. Having failed to do so, he has filed the Writ petition after nearly five months. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches also. 35. Immediately on the advertisements calling for tenders, he ought to have approached this Court. Having failed to do so, he has filed the Writ petition after nearly five months. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches also. 35. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.