JUDGMENT 1. The present public interest litigation is preferred against the action of the respondent alleging therein that some undue favour has been given to M/s. Serve All Developers Private Ltd. (respondent No. 4 in the present writ petition) in allotment of land near Durgapura and seeks following writ, order or direction from this Court: (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be commended with a direction to produce the entire file pertaining to the allotment of land to M/s. Serve All Developers Pvt. Ltd., along with other details, which are required in the interest of a proper decision in the case; (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be commanded with a further direction to cancel the allotment of land so made in favour of M/s. Serve All Developers Pvt. Ltd. without putting the land in reference for auction, more so only on 60% of the reserved price; (iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be commanded (sic commended) with a further direction not to allot the land measuring 900200 meter, which otherwise belongs to the RSRTC for establishment of the bus stand, which otherwise is a public cause and in the interest of the public at large and for which it is learnt that the RSRTC has already paid the amount, as such declaration has been made in the pending litigation of some land; (iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Hon'ble Court may further direct the CBI to investigate the matter entirely so as to see at whose instance, the land in reference is being allotted at a price less by 10-20 times than what otherwise has been fetched by the JDA while putting other neighbouring pieces of land for auction. 2. The land in question was initially purchased by Kashipuri Housing Society from the original Khatedar. Thereafter, the land was acquired by the State Government. The acquisition was challenged by Kashipuri Society but it remained unsuccessful in all Courts including the Apex Court. 3. Thereafter, members of the society challenged the acquisition before this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court has rejected that petition. However, special appeal is still pending before this Court and the stay granted by this Court in favour of the members of the society was also vacated by the Division Bench, 4. 3. Thereafter, members of the society challenged the acquisition before this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court has rejected that petition. However, special appeal is still pending before this Court and the stay granted by this Court in favour of the members of the society was also vacated by the Division Bench, 4. Petitioner's main grievance is only regarding allotment of land at 60% of the reserve price for establishment of hotel to the respondent No.4. 5. The petitioner states that if the land which is allotted to respondent No. 4 on 60% reserved price, is being allotted by making auction, it could have fetched more price that the respondent company has paid. 6. The petitioner also alleged that the company belongs to one Shri Lal Suri who is having good political approach and due to political interference and with a view to give benefit to the individual company, the [and has been allotted to the company at 60% of the reserve price which is at the instance of high ups. 7. Learned Advocate General Shri S.M. Mehta denied the averments made in the writ petition. However, it is not disputed that out of the total land bighas of land was allotted to the RSRTC for establishing new bus stand for plying the buses for Kota and other routes on the negotiated price of Rs.12 lacs per bigha, whereas land was allotted to Radison Hotel at the rate of Rs.1,800/- per square meter which come to Rs.45 lacs per bigha approximately. 8. So far allotment made in favour of the respondent No. 4 is 20 concerned, learned Advocate General submitted that 18000 sq. meter of land has been allotted to the respondent No. 4 at 60% of the reserved price rate for establishment of Hotels in the private sector. The allotment has been made as per policy decision of the State Government dated 17.11.2001 where under when the investment is made over Rs.50 crores under the scheme then the land is to 25 be allotted at the rate of 60% of the reserved price of the area. 9. Learned Advocate General also referred to the policy dated 17 11 .2001 and denied the allegation of the petitioner that the company belongs to one Shri Lalit Suri who is having political say. 10. 9. Learned Advocate General also referred to the policy dated 17 11 .2001 and denied the allegation of the petitioner that the company belongs to one Shri Lalit Suri who is having political say. 10. It is not disputed by the learned Advocate General that there is always difference between the reserve price and the price fixed in auction. The plots are given on reserved price according to the policy decision of the State Government. In the instant case the policy decision was taken to boost up tourist industry in the State with a view to attract heavy investment which will give long term benefit to the State in the shape of attracting tourists 11. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the decision to allot the land was taken by a High powered Joint Committee consisting of Chief Minister and other Ministers and senior officers. Thus, there is no illegality or male fide in the allotment of land to M/s. Serve All Developers Pvt. Ltd. 12. On behalf of respondent No. 4 Mr. A.K. Bhandari submits that the Government of Rajasthan has declared tourism policy of Rajasthan for the year 2001. The policy so designed is to ensure optimum utilisation of rich tourism resources of the State and the tourism industry is fastest growing industry in the world. Mr. Bhandari referred to the policy statement which reads as under: 9.1. The most crucial component for tourism is to provide suitable as accommodation for various categories of tourists. Since the tourists are not a homogeneous entity, and are highly differentiated; accommodation reneging from budget and economy class to 5 Star and Resorts will have to be augmented. 9.2 Rajasthan has estimated tourist accommodation of 19000 rooms so in 772 Hotels (DOT. RAJ) as per assessment of the Star Tourism Department, 20000 additional rooms are needed by the year 2005 AD. 9.3 The State will endeavour to encourage more private investment in the hotel industry rather than engage itself in raising such infrastructure except in areas where private investment may not be forthcoming." 13. In implementation of the policy, the State of Rajasthan vide its order s dated 31.3.1999 constituted a Board of infrastructure Development & Investment (BID) which is headed by the Chief Minister. 14. The respondent company has entered into collaboration with world-renowned hotel chain, Radison Hotels International Inc. In implementation of the policy, the State of Rajasthan vide its order s dated 31.3.1999 constituted a Board of infrastructure Development & Investment (BID) which is headed by the Chief Minister. 14. The respondent company has entered into collaboration with world-renowned hotel chain, Radison Hotels International Inc. to build a 100 Room Hotel in Jaipur at a cost Approx Rs.80 Crores and the land measuring 10 18000 sq. mtr. near Khasra No. 86 which is adjacent to the land in dispute and since they wanted about 90x200 M of and adjacent to their own land for bringing up a grand five star hotel. Keeping this in view, the respondent submitted an application to Jaipur Development Authority for allotment of the land along with the project report of the Hotel. 15. In 12th meeting of the Board of Infrastructure Development & Investment held on 13.3.2003, the Government decided to allot the land . measuring 90 x 200 M for hotel project in accordance with the Government's policy on certain terms and conditions. 16. Pursuant to the allotment order dated 5.4.2003, the respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 3,37,50,025.00 (Rupees Three Crores Thirty Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand Twenty Five only) on 7.5.2003 with Jaipur Development Authority. 17. Mr. Bhandari submitted that under this policy the State Government has allotted the land at concessional rate to M/s. G.E. Capital for establishment of a Call Centre at Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur and the land has also been allotted to Escorts Hospital in the same manner. 18. Learned counsel for the JDA Mr. Bharat Vyas does not dispute that land has been allotted at concessional rate, but submitted that he has no objection if the said land is renotified for open auction as the JDA will be able to fetch more money. 19. The learned Advocate General also does not dispute that in case required land measuring 90 x 200 M which was allotted in favour of the respondent No. 4 under the Government policy at concessional rate can be put to open auction. 20. Mr. A.K. Bhandari appearing for respondent No. 4 only submitted that in case the aforesaid land is put to open auction he may be allowed to participate in the same and the money deposited by the respondent No. 4 be adjusted against the price if respondent No. 4 is able to purchase the same land in open auction. 20. Mr. A.K. Bhandari appearing for respondent No. 4 only submitted that in case the aforesaid land is put to open auction he may be allowed to participate in the same and the money deposited by the respondent No. 4 be adjusted against the price if respondent No. 4 is able to purchase the same land in open auction. And in case respondent No. 4 is not able to purchase the land in open auction, amount so deposited may be returned to the respondent No.4. 21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to direct the State and JDA to auction the land in question by following due process of law and in case respondent No. 4 succeeds in the auction, the amount which has already been deposited by the respondent No. 4 may be adjusted against the price of the said land. We also consider it appropriate to direct that in case respondent No. 4 is unable to get the said land in open auction the amount so deposited be returned to the respondent No.4 at the earliest possibility. It is expected from JDA to initiate auction proceedings as early as possible. During this period, interim order dated 19.5.2003 shall continue and after completion of auction proceedings, interim order stands vacated. 22. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******