Judgment : The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mrs.Prabha Sridevan, J.: 1. The State is the appellant in both the appeals. We will deal with Writ Appeal No.428 of 1999 which arises out of a show cause notice dated 13. 1998 first. .2. In 1993, the Social Welfare Nutritious Meal Programme Department issued G.O.Ms.No.111 announcing the setting up of an Educational Complex for children in accordance with a scheme devised by the Government for the welfare of the young. The complex was to be called “Annai Santhya World” and the execution of the whole scheme was to be done by the Tamil Nadu Corporation for Development of Women ( Maham), the second respondent. The Government identified the site which was then under the possession of Coimbatore Medical College having been acquired by the Government in 1967 for establishment of the College. 25.19 acres were carved out of the lands in possession of the College for setting up of the Scheme. The Social Welfare Department was also permitted to enter upon the site. Initially, Maham was to have taken up the project and carried it out but it was felt that Maham did not have the wherewithal to run the project by itself. The social welfare Department decided to lease out a portion of the site to put up hotel/motel project to mobilize required funds. Tenders were called for. And the Department granted permission to lease out to three private parties (a) Kenil Worth for putting up a hotel (b) Jenneys Residency Pvt. Ltd., the first respondent for putting up Hotel/Shopping Complex/Country club and (3) JUMBO’S Park for putting up Educational Amusement Park. We are here concerned only with the first respondent (the writ petitioner) who was allotted 5 acres, out of the site, on lease for 33 years. The lease deed was also executed by Maham in favour of the petitioner. 3. Two Public Interest Litigations were filed, one challenging the transfer of the site for reasons other than establishment of Childrens Educational and Amusement Park, and the other challenging the G.Os. pursuant to which the land was transferred, on the ground, that the land earmarked as instructional zone was illegally converted to recreational zone. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court and the writ appeals filed there against were also withdrawn. pursuant to which the land was transferred, on the ground, that the land earmarked as instructional zone was illegally converted to recreational zone. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court and the writ appeals filed there against were also withdrawn. After that, in 1998, the impugned letter has been issued by the Social Welfare Department to the first respondent in which it was stated that the Social Welfare Department itself had not acquired the right to deal with the property, since the transfer in its favour was not complete and therefore, the leasing out was not appropriate and non-est in the eye of law. And therefore the first respondent was called upon to show cause why the lands that were leased should not be resumed by the Government. 4. Tothis, the first respondent sent a reply that the validity of the creation of an amusement park, the propriety of the Government in transferring the land from the Medical College to Social Welfare Department for the purpose of creating an amusement park had already been dealt with by this Court in the two Public Interest Litigation earlier referred to and therefore, the show cause notice itself amounted to contempt of court. 5. Thereafter the first respondent filed W.P.No.5109 of 1998 challenging the show cause notice, this was allowed on the ground the Government cannot take inconsistent stands and after filing an affidavit in the earlier Public Interest Litigation that the land had been transferred to Social Welfare Department, it ill behoved the Government to come forward with the statement that the Social Welfare Department had no right to deal with the property. The learned Judge was also of the opinion that the State would be bound by the Principles of Promissory Estoppel having handed over possession of the site and having allowed the petitioner to put up a huge superstructure. The show cause notice itself was, in the opinion of the learned Judge, issued only to harass the writ petitioner. Against this order, the present writ appeal has been filed. 6. The show cause notice itself was, in the opinion of the learned Judge, issued only to harass the writ petitioner. Against this order, the present writ appeal has been filed. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General while acknowledging that the transfer to the Social Welfare Department had already been considered in the earlier Public Interest Litigations which went in favour of the first respondent, would still bring to the notice of this court, the norms to be followed by the authorities while dealing with public property and also urged that the second respondent had not acquired the legal right to transfer by way of lease or otherwise the property to anyone. .7. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the norms laid down by the Supreme Court for authorities to follow, while dealing with public property, had not been observed. It was further submitted that when there is a missing link with regard to the rights over the site subject matter of the writ petition, when there is nothing to show that there was a transfer in favour of Social Welfare Department, eventhough it may only be an inter departmental transfer, the Social Welfare Department cannot grant any legal right to Maham. Therefore, Maham could not have executed a valid lease in favour of the writ petitioner. Therefore, it was submitted that the impugned letter stating that the transfer itself was “non-est in the eye of law” is perfectly correct. The further submission is that there was no shift in the stand of the Government, on the contrary as early as 29. 1996, the Collector of Coimbatore had brought to the notice of the Secretary of the Social Welfare Department that it was not known whether final decision had been taken regarding the mode of conveyance to the Social Welfare Department. G.O.Ms.No.900, dated 110. 1993 had stopped with granting permission to enter and there was no further action. On 13. 1998 which is the date of the impugned order this fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner by the issuance of the show cause notice. Therefore, it was submitted the writ petition ought to be dismissed. 8. Sri.P.S.Raman, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/ respondent herein would state that the entire matter had been acquired finality by the order passed by this Court in the two Public Interest Litigations. Therefore, it was submitted the writ petition ought to be dismissed. 8. Sri.P.S.Raman, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/ respondent herein would state that the entire matter had been acquired finality by the order passed by this Court in the two Public Interest Litigations. Once all the issues had been put to rest and the decision accepted by the State, the State cannot, by issuing the letter, allow the same question to rear its head. According to the learned counsel, the State was bound by the principles of res judicata and what had been decided once in a court of law cannot be agitated again. He also urged that assuming without granting that the Social Welfare Department had no right to transfer or lease the land to Maham, the respondent cannot be made to suffer since he bona fide believed that what the State had done had been done properly. Further the State had also justified its stand in the earlier litigations and on the basis of this a huge construction had been put up at considerable cost believing that the lease granted in its favour was a valid one. This had happened in 1994. It was unfair and improper for the State to reverse its stand. According to him, this was nothing but political vendetta. The motive behind the issuance of the letter impugned in the writ proceedings was purely political. There was a change of Government in 1996 and the successor Government wanted to nullify the schemes initiated by its predecessor. The Scheme for the Welfare of children had been announced and the modalities had been discussed and pursuant thereto it had been decided by the State that since setting up of an Amusement Park by itself will not be financially viable, it was necessary to set up hotels, country club and shopping arcade to generate the income for running the Amusement Park. The Amusement Park was for the welfare of the children and the surplus income was intended to be utilised for the development of women. It was a welfare scheme in accordance with the State policies and it was not for the successor Government to question how the scheme was implemented. In any event, the legality of creating a shopping complex and country club to fund the Amusement Park had already been decided by this Court. It was a welfare scheme in accordance with the State policies and it was not for the successor Government to question how the scheme was implemented. In any event, the legality of creating a shopping complex and country club to fund the Amusement Park had already been decided by this Court. The present impugned letter had been issued only with an oblique motive and deserved to be quashed. 9. We are conscious that most of the issues explicitly as well as tacitly raised by the learned Additional Advocate General have already acquired finality by virtue of the two earlier public interest litigations decided by this Court. But for the purpose of deciding this writ appeal, we would like to trace the events culminating in the show cause notice. In the beginning, the second respondent “ Maham”. The Tamil Nadu Corporation for Development of Women Limited was intended to carry out the project of setting up of the educational complex called “Annai Sandhya World”. “ Maham” is a Company, which is governed by its Memorandum and Articles of Association. Project and programmes for child development were not among the main objects of the Corporation as framed originally but they were included by an amendment of the Memorandum and Articles of Association. This was done because the appellant had already entrusted the educational amusement park project to “ Maham”. Before the inclusion of the new object, the Managing Director of Maham had executed the lease deed in favour of then first respondent. The transfer of the land from the Medical College was accepted vide G.O.900, dated 110. 1993 on the basis, the establishment of amusement park for children is for public purpose. The attack on the decision to transfer the land from the Medical Department has already been rejected in the two earlier public interest litigations. The aforesaid G.O. also mentions the relevant Board standing order which applies to cases acquired lands which are not required for the purpose for which they are acquired. We see from the G.O. that the appellant had indicated a sense of urgency in execution of the scheme. So permission to enter was granted forthwith pending final decision regarding mode of conveyance. We see from the G.O. that the appellant had indicated a sense of urgency in execution of the scheme. So permission to enter was granted forthwith pending final decision regarding mode of conveyance. The appellant in its counter filed in the earlier public interest litigation W.P.No.1152 of 1995 has referred to a company called “Annai Sandhya Amusement Theme Park Limited” which had been registered as a Company on 10. 1993 (12 days before the aforesaid G.O.). The counter also refers to the necessity for the Theme Parks being set up which are inter-related to the Tourism Industry. A reading of the counter makes it clear that the focus of the Theme Park is related more to Tourism Development than children development. The initial purpose of the Them Park, for which the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Maham was amended, was for child development and childrens educational advancement which is a public purpose. This was why the Revenue Department accepted the proposal of the Collector, Coimbatore to transfer the lands form Medical College. On 7. 1994, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.192 which shows that after careful and comprehensive discussion regarding the setting up of amusement Park it was decided that Maham would take up and execute the project. The source of finance for Maham was expected to come from donors’ contribution. Clause of the G.O. clearly states that this new venture would generate its own revenue to service the debt, and pay the lease amount. In fact a healthy flow of revenue was expected since the surplus was planned to be utilised for Womens Development. But in the counter in the earlier writ petition the appellant has stated that the main object of the project is to generate funds for rehabilitation orphans, handicapped and poor widows. By August, 1994, Maham issued a tender notice which shows a total shift from the scheme to create a childrens educational complex to a complex with hotel, motel and shopping arcade. Establishment of amusement parks, promotion of tourism, setting up of hotel and motel are however not among the objects of Maham. From the issuance of tender and from other office letters, it is seen that Maham found that it was financially incapable to run the Amusement Park on its own and the only way it could be done was as a joint venture. From the issuance of tender and from other office letters, it is seen that Maham found that it was financially incapable to run the Amusement Park on its own and the only way it could be done was as a joint venture. It should be remembered that as early as October, 1993, the Social Welfare Department expressed its urgency to set up the project immediately and permission to enter upon the land was granted without even deciding upon the mode of conveyance. Almost one year later nothing had still been done and suddenly Maham which was supposed to set up the project found it financially unviable to do so. It is startling to see that these basic aspects of financial capacity or otherwise were not gone into before the decision to divest the Medical College of the land was taken by the Government and the Social Welfare Department with urgency. When ambitious projects are started with all the attendant fanfare one expects the officials to go into the basic factors which are necessary for the project to take off. The correspondence placed before the Court do not show either planning or forethought. 10. On 20.10.1994 by G.O.Ms.No.277, the Government approved the proposal to give an extent of 5 acres of land to the first respondent herein on a thirty-three years lease. On 29. 1996, the Collector of Coimbatore has addressed a letter to the Special Commissioner, Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme. This is a very important letter. In this letter it is stated that out of the three private allottees of land only the first respondent herein had started construction, the others viz., KENIL WORTH and JUMBO’S PARK had not even submitted land plan or site plan, and therefore the Collector was of the opinion, that the area allotted to them could be put to much better use. Para.6 of the letter is very relevant wherein the Collector specifically has brought to the notice of the Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department that all that has been given is permission to enter upon the land pending final decision regarding the mode of conveyance and that the Governments final decision has either not been taken or atleast his files do not include any indication of the Governments final decision. The Collector, Coimbatore by his letter has expressed his doubt as to whether the Social Welfare Department had itself acquired legal possession of the land. For two years, the appellant seems to have been in a state of slumber and finally awoke on 13. 1998 to issue the impugned show cause notice. 11. In the earlier public interest litigation the appellants stand was that at the request of the Social Welfare Department the land had been transferred from one department to another in conformity with the existing Rules and Regulations and in consultation with the authorities. In the counter filed in the present writ petition, against which this appeal has been filed, the appellant has stated that the earlier counter was filed erroneously on the presumption that the land was taken on lease. The letter dated 29. 1996 written by the Collector indicates that atleast till that date no final decision regarding the mode of transfer had been taken. The Annual Report for Maham for several consecutive years have been called for and the Annual Report for the year 1996-97 states that the land has not been included in the Fixed Assets schedule since the mode of transfer of this land is yet to be finalised. We called for production of the letter dated 11. 1994 from the Managing Director, Maham which finds a reference in G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 7. 1994 referred to Supra. This letter speaks about the decision to increase the authorised share capital of Maham from Rs.1 crore to Rs.1.5 crore to enable allotment of equity shares to the Government of Tamil Nadu as consideration for the allotment of land. Only if the share capital is increased, would Maham able to issue equity shares. Atleast until 1996-97 the authorised share capital of Maham is only Rs.1 crore. Therefore, neither has the consideration been paid by Maham, nor as the Annual Reports reveal, has the transfer been effected since even the mode of transfer has not yet been finalised. 12. Now we come to the question of promissory estoppel which is the basis on which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. The respondent entered into lease with belief that the Government Corporation has a right to execute the lease and is entitled to do so. 12. Now we come to the question of promissory estoppel which is the basis on which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. The respondent entered into lease with belief that the Government Corporation has a right to execute the lease and is entitled to do so. The citizen dealing with the public body cannot always know the limits of the authority of the public body and he should not normally suffer if he finds subsequently that his expectations are denied. The first respondent can be justifiably aggrieved by the sudden volte-face on the part of the Government asking him to show cause why the land cannot be resumed especially when the Government had earlier resisted the public interest litigation on the ground that the transfer was completed. The various decisions relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General dealt with the norms to be followed by the authorities while dealing with public property. In the decision reported in Fertilzer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sindri v. Union of India [1981] 1 S.C.C. 568 the Apex Court observed thus: “We want to make it clear that we do not doubt the bona fides of the authorities, but as far as possible, sales of public property, when the intention is to get the best price, ought to take place publicly. The vendors are not necessarily bound to accept the highest or any other offer, but the public at least gets the satisfaction that the Government has put all its cards on the table.” The decision reported in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shiv Charan Sharma and others State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shiv Charan Sharma and others State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shiv Charan Sharma and others 1981 S.C.C. (Supp.) 85 was a case which arose out of a grant of lease for excavating sand and minor minerals. The Supreme Court said that public interest demanded that those who sought the privilege for extracting mineral under lease from the State, should be asked to bid against each other and observed that, “Public auction with open participation and a reserve price guarantees public interest being fully subserved. The Supreme Court said that public interest demanded that those who sought the privilege for extracting mineral under lease from the State, should be asked to bid against each other and observed that, “Public auction with open participation and a reserve price guarantees public interest being fully subserved. That is what High Court by the judgment under appeal directed.” Again in the decision reported in Chenchu Rami Reddy and another v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Chenchu Rami Reddy and another v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Chenchu Rami Reddy and another v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1158 the Supreme Court commented upon the duty of the authorities in exercising power over the property of public institution. The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of permitting sale by private negotiations, since public officials and public minded citizens must show exemplary vigilance. To quote from the judgment: “We cannot conclude without observing that property of such institutions or endowments must be jealously protected.” The decisions reported in Ram & Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and others Ram & Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and others Ram & Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and others [1985] 3 S.C.C. 267 was also a case relating to auction of minor mineral bodies. As observed by the Supreme Court, a welfare State exists for the largest good of the largest number and does not have the freedom which a private person has while disposing of the public property. The alertness and vigilance which the Government authorities should display while contracting or selling or leasing out its property is again stressed in the decision reported in R.Venugopala Naidu v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities R.Venugopala Naidu v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities R.Venugopala Naidu v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities 1984 S.C.C. 1Committee of Management of Pachaiyappas Trust and TVL.Sundaram Granitee v. Imperial Granites Ltd. TVL.Sundaram Granitee v. Imperial Granites Ltd. TVL.Sundaram Granitee v. Imperial Granites Ltd. [1974] 1 S.C.C. 475. In all the cases, the Supreme Court has stressed that grant of rights over public property should be done in a manner that is open, fair, honest and above board. 13. But we are afraid that the stage when these questions could have been urged is long past. In all the cases, the Supreme Court has stressed that grant of rights over public property should be done in a manner that is open, fair, honest and above board. 13. But we are afraid that the stage when these questions could have been urged is long past. When the public interest litigation was filed, the appellant unambiguously stated that all the safeguards have been observed and there was no mala fide in the decision to offer the tender to the first respondent. In fact even the petitioner who filed public interest litigation did not allege any mala fide and therefore the learned Judge in that writ petition held that the entrustment of the land to the private individuals cannot be said to be either contrary to the G.O or intended to give preference to any persons. This finding has become final. 14. On the other hand, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent reported in Express Newspaper v. Union of India A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 872 would apply to this case. The petitioners in the above case had challenged the validity of a notice of re-entry which required the petitioners to show cause why the Union of India should not re-enter and take possession of the demised land and why buildings being unauthorised shall not be demolished. The petitioner therein had been permitted to construct new buildings according to the recommendation of the authorities after the matter had been dealt with at all levels by the concerned Ministry. The successor Government was bound by the assurances of the previous Government and was precluded from challenging the validity of the permission granted by the predecessor. The Doctrine of Promissory estoppel was considered by the Supreme Court at length and it was laid down inter alia. 1. “that assurances intended to be acted upon and in fact acted upon were binding and 2. that where a Government Department wrongly assumes authority to perform a legal Act, citizen is entitled to assume that it has that authority..” The Supreme Court therefore held, “In that view, the successor Government was clearly bound by the decision taken by the Minister particularly when it had been acted upon”. 15. that where a Government Department wrongly assumes authority to perform a legal Act, citizen is entitled to assume that it has that authority..” The Supreme Court therefore held, “In that view, the successor Government was clearly bound by the decision taken by the Minister particularly when it had been acted upon”. 15. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the approval of the Appropriate Authority had also been obtained before the lease deed in favour of the first respondent was registered. It was his further submission that the rental value truly reflected the market rate and therefore, there was no loss to the State and further, construction had been completed upto 60% on the assurance by the Government through various departments. Photographs of the construction were also produced before us. 16. The learned counsel for petitioner has also produced xerox copies of receipts issued by the second respondent Corporation. These show payments of the annual lease amount which have been received by the second respondent for the year ending 210. 1997. A certificate has been produced to show that the payment for the year 1997-98 had been encashed. This is issued by the Bank. So the submission is, having received the lease amount, the State cannot say that the lease is non-est in law. 17. At this stage, the appellant cannot be heard to to urge that they have the right to resume the lands. The various letters issued by the Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department addressed to the first respondent give the impression that the procedure of transferring the land is complete or at any rate Mahams execution of lease in favour of the first respondent was with the concurrence and approval of the Government. Maham is after all only an Undertaking of the Government and therefore, its right to transfer properties in favour of third parties would have been done only with the approval of the Government. At any rate, the first respondent had no reason to believe that the execution of the lease in their favour was in any way irregular or that it did not have the approval of the Government or that neither Maham nor the Social Welfare Department have any right to transfer the land. At any rate, the first respondent had no reason to believe that the execution of the lease in their favour was in any way irregular or that it did not have the approval of the Government or that neither Maham nor the Social Welfare Department have any right to transfer the land. On the other hand the first respondent had every reason to believe that the lease was in every respect legal and complete. Having thus allowed the first respondent to incur expenditure and put up a big construction, the appellant is clearly estopped from issuing the impugned show cause notice. The appeal will have to be dismissed. 18. The other appeal viz., W.A.No.582 of 1999 is against W.P.No.11860 of 1998 and is with regard to the Order dated 26. 1998 whereunder the plans submitted by the first respondent were rejected. The learned single Judge has in his order given suitable directions to all the respondents to issue the necessary notification and to make sure that the first respondent puts up construction in accordance with the sanctioned plans. It is seen from the impugned order that there is a reference to a complaint to the Crime Branch, C.I.D. in respect of irregularity in the allotment of land. The learned counsel submits that these proceedings have been dropped. An additional typed set of papers has been filed. It is seen that the second respondent in this writ appeal viz., Member Secretary has also issued a letter dated 23. 1999 to the first respondent where the first respondent has been requested to correct the plan and rectify the building rules violation and resubmit the plans at the earliest. The letter dated 11. 1999 has also been produced wherein the second respondent had recommended that the land leased to the first respondent may be reclassified as commercial zone. This recommendation had also been accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the defects pointed out in the plan have been rectified and that he is also willing to comply with any other requirements. Therefore, if there are any other procedural formalities to be observed, in order to comply with the directions issued by the learned single Judge, the same may be done at the earliest and the learned single Judges order does not need interference. .19. Therefore, if there are any other procedural formalities to be observed, in order to comply with the directions issued by the learned single Judge, the same may be done at the earliest and the learned single Judges order does not need interference. .19. Before we part with this case, we would like to under score the responsibility of the State with regard to public properties. When authorities deal with public properties there is an element of trust. Where there is trust there has to be accountability, because the Management by the authorities of the properties is done on behalf of the people in a democratic Government. The party in power may introduce populist schemes more with an eye to obtain political mileage that to secure public benefit. The implementation of the schemes are in the hands of Officers. They should see that administrative norms like standing orders, statutory provisions like that of the Companies Act and the basic guidelines with regard to issue of tenders etc. are adhered to. This is the least that is expected of them. The party which abuses or misuses its power can be defeated in elections and it is. But what is the duty of the officerse They must not forgot that they owe a duty to the public while dealing with public property, their duty is ub errima fide. Amidst the murky features in this case, the letter dated 29. 1996 by the Collector shines brightly. Why the authorities took two years thereafter to issue the impugned letter will remain and enigma. It is an irony that till date nothing has been done for childrens education or amusement on this land. On the other hand on this hotel and motel complex bars and cardrooms are proposed to be included, which have nothing to do either with Childrens education or entertainment. We have grave doubts as to whether the whole scheme was at all intended for the benefit of children or betterment of women. 20. It is made clear that we are quashing the Governments action with regard to the first respondent alone only because the first respondent had acted upon the promise and incurred the heavy expenditure. If, as its is dated in the letter dated 29. 20. It is made clear that we are quashing the Governments action with regard to the first respondent alone only because the first respondent had acted upon the promise and incurred the heavy expenditure. If, as its is dated in the letter dated 29. 1996 by the Collector of Coimbatore other two allottees have not taken any action pursuant to the acceptance of their tenders, the Government is free to take such action as it deems fit. Though the scheme was launched with the ostensible reason of advancing womens development, we have already seen these well publicized good intention have been ignored. We think therefore, it will be proper for the first respondent to deposit some amount to the credit of the second respondent in Writ Appeal No.428 of 1999 for using the same towards the welfare of children. The first respondent is therefore directed to deposit Rs.25 lakhs to the credit of the second respondent Corporation. It is our intention that this deposit should be used for the benefit of the children. It has come to our notice that pursuant to reports about incidents of female infanticide in and around Salem and Dharmapuri, a project has been proposed by Indian Council for Child Welfare to curb female infanticide. This has been accepted in spirit by Director of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, who has requested the appellant to clear the proposal. The India Council for Child Welfare has also submitted to the Secretary, Social Welfare Department a broad out line of a girl child protection scheme. As per the proposal, the goal is to ensure the rights of girl children to Survival Protection, Development and Participation and to safeguard their overall development. The objective is to prevent female infanticide, to create net work of voluntary agencies in Salem Town for protecting the rights of women and girl children and to improve their educational and economic status. There is special focus on giving the girls and women, training in life skills because these young girls and women who are unwanted by their families, uneducated and untrained, have such low self esteem, that very often they end up in brothels in the major Metropolitan Cities in India. Therefore, the Counsel has evolved a broad based strategy to train women psychologically, socially and economically. Therefore, the Counsel has evolved a broad based strategy to train women psychologically, socially and economically. Since we are given to understand that this project has been approved by the appellant, we direct that the second respondent/Corporation in co-ordination with the appellant to fund this girl child project, which the Indian Council for Child Welfare has proposed and delineated the scheme of the project. It is directed that the Managing Director of the second respondent Corporation will actively supervise and implement the girl child project at Salem in coordination with the Indian Council for Child Welfare, Tamil Nadu. .21. We have been informed by the counsel for the first respondent that the facilities offered by it shall not be restricted to the members of the Country Club alone and that it shall be open to the public on a daily entrance fee. The working out of this arrangement is entirely upto the first respondent. However, since the childrens amusement park which was the starting point of this entire proceedings, was a scheme for childrens education and entertainment, we direct the first respondent to demarcate one area within the five acres allotted to them and provide amusement facilities for children. Of course entry into this childrens amusement area shall be on payment of some modest entrance fee which will be fixed by the first respondent. We also direct that one day in a month which will be either Saturday or Sunday, the facilities in the childrens amusement area should be made available free of any charge by the first respondent to children, who are disadvantaged either economically, emotionally or physically or psychologically. Sufficient publicity should be made by the first respondent about this scheme of making the children amusement area freely available to such children, in particular to those organisations which will work for these children or schools for these disadvantaged children, so that, all these children also enjoy these entertainment facilities. 22. The first respondent is directed to file an affidavit regarding the deposit of Rs.25 lakhs to the credit of second respondent, the demarcation of the area for childrens amusement within the land allotted to the first respondent by the Government, and the manner in which it proposes to work out the one day in a month scheme. 22. The first respondent is directed to file an affidavit regarding the deposit of Rs.25 lakhs to the credit of second respondent, the demarcation of the area for childrens amusement within the land allotted to the first respondent by the Government, and the manner in which it proposes to work out the one day in a month scheme. The learned Additional Advocate General is directed to inform the Director for Social Welfare, Tamil Nadu about the deposit made for the benefit of the Girl Child Project at Salem, so that, they can work out the requirements for the project accordingly. 23. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed with the above directions. No costs.