Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 814 (ALL)

R. B. Singh v. State of U. P.

2003-04-10

JAGDISH BHALLA, KAMAL KISHORE

body2003
JUDGMENT : JAGDISH BHALLA, KAMAL KISHORE, JJ. 1. The above mentioned writ petition No. 6851 of 2002 has been filed by Sri R.B. Singh and two others against the conversion of land and construction made thereon under Indira Gandhi Pratishthan Project (hereinafter referred to as the "Old Project") initiated by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1984-85 into proposed "Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Antarrashtriya Samajik Parivartan Pustakalya Evam Sangrahalaya (in short referred to as the "New Project") by the opposite parties. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 of the writ petition are practising advocates whereas Petitioner No. 3 is a social and political worker and is also a Block Pramukh of Kunda Block, District Pratapgarh. All the three Petitioners are said to be socio-political activists and are working for the upliftment of the society and for bringing purity and decency in the political life. 2. Writ Petition No. 6886 (MB) of 2002 has been filed by Vinod Misra, who is an advocate by profession and is also the Member-Secretary of the "Uttar Pradesh Kalakar Association," praying therein that the State Government be directed to complete the project of the Indira Gandhi Pratishthan expeditiously and has further prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the decision dated 2nd June, 2001 by which the State Government has abandoned the project of Indira Gandhi Pratishthan and setting up another project in its place on the same land. 3. Writ Petition No. 6974 (MB) of 2002 has been filed by one Hemant Kumar Mishra, who too is an advocate by profession and the prayer made in this writ petition is almost identical to the prayer as made in writ petition No. 6886 (MB) of 2002 filed by Vinod Misra. 4. Writ Petition No. 6978 of 2002 has been filed by one Ashok Pandey an advocate and is said to be the Chairman of Global Human Rights Organization and Rastra Raksh Manch. It has been inter alia prayed by him that the State Government be directed to complete the construction of Ambedkar Park and Ambedkar Library and to quash the decision taken by the State Government for construction of Indira Gandhi Trust. 5. All the above writ petitions since were on the same subject-matter, hence all the writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. 6. 5. All the above writ petitions since were on the same subject-matter, hence all the writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. 6. Before dealing with the actual controversy involved in the writ petitions, it would be apt to mention certain relevant facts of the case. 7. To pay homage to the late Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi, who was assassinated on 31st October, 1984, the Government of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1984 decided to construct a Memorial in her memory and it was named as "Indira Gandhi Pratishthan" Project. The estimated cost of the project was Rs. 46.04 crores at the time when decision was taken to construct the Indira Gandhi Pratishthan (Old Project). Lucknow Development Authority was directed by the State Government to provide the land. The Board of Lucknow Development Authority thereafter passed a resolution allotting 25 acres of land in Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. 8. The Indira Gandhi Pratishthan, a memorial to Late Smt. Indira Gandhi at Lucknow, is visualized as combination of symbolic and institutionalized monument. The aims and object of the Prathisthan are mentioned in the Brochure contained as Annexure-10 to the writ petition No. 6851 (MB) of 2002, which reads as under : 1. To serve as a major resource center for the arts especially, written, oral and visual source material. 2. To undertake research and publication programmes of reference work, glossaries, dictionaries and encyclopedias etc. 3. To establish a tribal and folk museum with a view to conduct scientific systematic studies. 4. To provide a forum for a creative and critical dialogue through performance, exhibitions, multimedia projections, conferences, seminars, workshops between and amongst the diverse arts traditional and contemporary. 5. To evolve models of research programmes and arts administration more pertinent to the Indian ethics and reality, as it exists in India today. 9. To construct the project on the land situated in Vipin Khand, the Lucknow Development Authority was made a nodal agency. A countrywide design contest for selecting the best architectural design for the Project was held and thereafter a Brochure was released in 1988. Ultimately, an Open Air Theatre, Seminar/Symposia /Lecture Complex, Art Gallery, Library, U.P. Darshan, Landscaping, Musical Fountain and a Housing facility for watch and ward and maintenance staff was decided to be constructed as is evident from the Brochure contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition. 10. Ultimately, an Open Air Theatre, Seminar/Symposia /Lecture Complex, Art Gallery, Library, U.P. Darshan, Landscaping, Musical Fountain and a Housing facility for watch and ward and maintenance staff was decided to be constructed as is evident from the Brochure contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition. 10. On 2nd October, 1989 the then Chief Minister laid the foundation stone. A perusal of writ petition indicates that sometime was consumed on account of finalization of the design/selection of Architect. Subsequently, a layout plan was prepared by the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam. It has been stated in the writ petition that Rs. 8 crores was incurred towards land cost whereas Rs. 3.11 crores were spent in filling and levelling of the land, construction of support bundh wall for safeguarding the project, 10-12 feet high boundary wall around the land, construction of water well and pump for taking out underground water, Electric Transformer, Plantation of trees in accordance with the I.G.P. design in addition to the site office of U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam. 11. In July, 1996 when the State was under the President Rule, drastic changes were made in the project whereby 10 acres of the land was marked as green area and parking to be allotted to private contractors, 10 acres of land was earmarked for construction of a Five Star Hotel and the remaining 5 acres for building of an Exhibition Hall, a Convention Centre with small Conference rooms and other office facilities. The above changes were made on the proposal of the Principal Secretary, Housing. However, these changes were never implemented. 12. It is important to mention at this juncture that the Petitioners have showed their ignorance regarding above decision on the ground that the decision taken during the President Rule was never made public and the Petitioners have come to know about the said decision only during the pendency of these writ petitions when it was informed by learned Advocate General to this Court. Consequently, the Petitioners made amendment in the writ petition challenging the said decision of the Governor. According to the Petitioners, interestingly, the decision to construct a five star hotel was taken on the ground that there was no five star hotel in the vicinity but infact this decision was taken much after the construction of Taj Residency Hotel, which is a five star hotel and falls in the same vicinity. According to the Petitioners, interestingly, the decision to construct a five star hotel was taken on the ground that there was no five star hotel in the vicinity but infact this decision was taken much after the construction of Taj Residency Hotel, which is a five star hotel and falls in the same vicinity. Further, the site for construction of Indira Gandhi Pratishthan remained the same. 13. It also appears from the perusal of record, that the State Government, in past, had taken a decision for construction of Ambedkar Park on a land, which was adjacent to the land allotted for Indira Gandhi Pratisthan. While the construction of Ambedkar Park was going on, a decision was taken by the Government sometime in the month of June, 2002 to construct "Baba Saheb Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Antarrashtriya Parivartan Pustakalaya Evam Sangrahalya" (New Project). The aims and object of the New Project have been mentioned in paragraph (ii) of the counter affidavit and the same are being reproduced hereunder : (a) To serve as a major resource center for literature on struggle for equality available all over the world. (b) To facilitate study on available reference works on social, economical, religious and other inequalities and struggle to overcome these. (c) To provide a forum for critical dialogue, discussions through exhibitions, multimedia projections, seminars, conferences and workshops between and amongst the diverse scenario of the inequalities and methods to overcome these. (d) To create a museum which will contain works, personal effects and information on lifes and times of important international personalities related to social change. 14. According to learned Counsel, Dr. Ashok Nigam, within a short span of time Rs. 15 crores was provided by the Government for the New Project and the State Government also approached/requested the Central Planning Commission for additional central assistance of Rs. 50.3 crores for the project, which the Petitioner believes has been accepted by the Commission. For the construction of New Project, the Lucknow Development Authority was selected as Nodal Agency and the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P.R.N.N.") was given work for constructing the same. Learned Counsel further added that the Government was in such a hurry to start construction of the New Project that proper procedure of getting the layout plan sanctioned from the authority concerned was not followed. 15. Dr. Learned Counsel further added that the Government was in such a hurry to start construction of the New Project that proper procedure of getting the layout plan sanctioned from the authority concerned was not followed. 15. Dr. Ashok Nigam and Sri C.B. Pandey appearing for the Petitioners of writ petition No. 6851 of 2002 and 6886/MB/2002 respectively submitted that sentiments of the Petitioner as well as of the general public at large were hurt when the foundation stone of the Old Project which was laid on 2nd October, 1989, was uprooted and the construction was demolished. The decision of the Government abandoning the Old Project over the land allotted for construction of Indira Gandhi Project and replacing it by a New Project when became public, it was condemned by all sections of the society and on account of uproar in the Assembly, the Speaker of the Assembly directed the Minister concerned to give a statement, who on 6.9.2002 gave reply (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) in the Assembly justifying the decision of the Government regarding construction of the New Project. 16. According to Dr. Ashok Nigam, the decision taken by the State Government during the President Rule was not the proper and legally justified decision as the file was never routed through the Advisor which is necessary under the Business Rule. Infact, the Secretary, Housing obtained the approval of the Governor and in view of Article 161 (1) and (3), the decision should have been notified and expressed in the name of Governor but the same was not done. Further, the decision taken was not in nexus with the aims and objects of Indira Gandhi Pratisthan. He added that in a parliamentary system of democracy with the background of constitutional ethos, the Governor during the President Rule is supposed to take decision regarding day-to-day affairs and it was outside the domain of the Governor to amend the decision taken by the Cabinet as such, the decision taken by the Governor for constructing five star hotel and other structure was not a valid decision and, therefore, same is liable to be quashed. 17. Elaborating further, Dr. Nigam submitted that the State Government has failed to show any cogent reasons for demolishing the structure and uprooting the Old Project and then shifting it to another place when such a huge amount of money had already been spent. 17. Elaborating further, Dr. Nigam submitted that the State Government has failed to show any cogent reasons for demolishing the structure and uprooting the Old Project and then shifting it to another place when such a huge amount of money had already been spent. This shows the mala fide and unreasonable attitude of the Government particularly in view of the fact that the Government has come up with a stand in the affidavit that the Old Project has neither been shelved nor has been abandoned and will be executed soon but not on the same land. It has been submitted that the State action is mala fide because the New Project can easily be made on the adjacent land of Ambedkar Udyan, which has ample space and has three openings. It has been further stated that Petitioners are not against the decision taken by the new Government for construction of New Project in the name of Dr. Ambedkar but the land on which it is being constructed and the way in which the foundation stone of Indira Gandhi Pratishthan was uprooted and the concrete structure was demolished. It has also been submitted that the Pratishthan was to be established in general public interest and its closure in an arbitrary manner with mala fide intention is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Establishing New Project on the land allotted for the Old Project is blatant misuse of authority and public money more so, when substantial money have already been spent on the implementation of Pratishthan Project. Therefore, the action of the new Government is contrary to the principles enunciated in Articles 38, 39 and 40 of the Constitution. 18. Sri C.B. Pandey appearing for one of the Petitioners argued that infact the State Government has abandoned the project of constructing Indira Gandhi Pratishthan in an arbitrary manner and with ulterior motives and took up another project on the same land which was allotted for the Old Project. It has further been submitted that the total area to be constructed for New Project is less than the proposed area of the Old Project. Therefore, neither the Government can abandon the project to be replaced by another project simply by an administrative order nor the decision taken by the Government for constructing New Project can be said to be a policy matter in strict sense. Therefore, neither the Government can abandon the project to be replaced by another project simply by an administrative order nor the decision taken by the Government for constructing New Project can be said to be a policy matter in strict sense. Replacing the Old Project by a New Project on the pretext that the land was vacant and progress of the Old Project was very slow is an arbitrary and mala fide action and shows the colourable exercise of powers. Learned Counsel further submitted that this is a burning example of political mala fides and once a decision has been taken to construct a Memorial in the name of a great leader, the new Government should not have demolished the structure and replaced it by another Project on the same land but in the name of another great leader. Further, such action or decision of the State Government is to obliterate the memory of Late Prime Minister. He, therefore, submitted that these types of obnoxious activities will lead to disintegration and the harmony of the country will be in danger but he wishes that he should be proved wrong. 19. Criticizing further the decision of the State Government for constructing New Project on the land allotted for Indira Gandhi Pratishthan, it has been argued that the Comptroller and Auditor General (in short referred to as "CAG") in its report dated 31.3.1998. (Annexure 2 to the writ petition No. 6886/MB/02) has stated that the money required for Ambedkar Park Project, adjoining the Pratishthan, has been sanctioned out of the contingency fund of the State, whereas the Pratishthan has been abandoned because of paucity of funds. It has also been indicated in the said report that on account of shortage of resources, the Indira Gandhi Pratishthan Project has been abandoned whereas on the adjoining land Ambedkar Udyan is being constructed, the cost of which is much higher. Alleging biased and mala fide attitude of the new Government towards the Old Project, it has been submitted that the Central Planning Commission has never been approached by the Government for imparting fund whereas for the New Project, the Government approached the Central Government for assistance and Rs. 50.3 crores have been sanctioned. Alleging biased and mala fide attitude of the new Government towards the Old Project, it has been submitted that the Central Planning Commission has never been approached by the Government for imparting fund whereas for the New Project, the Government approached the Central Government for assistance and Rs. 50.3 crores have been sanctioned. It has also been argued on behalf of the Petitioners that the Lucknow Development Authority has never cancelled or annulled its decision allocating the land for Indira Gandhi Pratishthan as such executing a different project on the same land is absolutely illegal and unjustified. Similarly, the State Government has not withdrawn or cancelled its earlier decision taken in the year 1985 for constructing Indira Gandhi Pratishthan on the land in question. 20. Placing reliance on S.R. Venkatraman v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 49; Mahabir Auto Stores v. I.O.C. AIR 1998 SC 1031 ; Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and Another Vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal, AIR 1985 SC 1622 and The Regional Manager and Another Vs. Pawan Kumar Dubey, AIR 1976 SC 1766 , Dr. Ashok Nigam submitted that the action of the State should be based on reason and fair play but in the instant case the State Government has exercised its power erroneously and with mala fide intention by bringing New Project in place of Old Project i.e. Indira Gandhi Pratishthan, which is neither in good faith nor have any legitimate reasons and the reasons given by the State are purely extraneous and irrelevant and, therefore, it amounts to colourable exercise of power or fraud on power. 21. Dr. Ashok Nigam vehemently urged that instant is the fit case in which this Court can show its interference and in support of this contention, he has relied upon the decisions rendered in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1 1 ; S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 , Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S. Muddappa and others, AIR 1991 SC 1902 and State of Maharashtra Vs. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi and others, AIR 1996 SC 1 . Dr. Ashok Nigam added further that the Hon'ble Supreme Court showed its interference in M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu and Others, AIR 1999 SC 2468 when it came to the conclusion that the reasons given for construction of complex are illusory and smacks of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and irrationality. Dr. Ashok Nigam added further that the Hon'ble Supreme Court showed its interference in M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu and Others, AIR 1999 SC 2468 when it came to the conclusion that the reasons given for construction of complex are illusory and smacks of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and irrationality. Similarly, the decision to construct Indira Gandhi Pratishthan on the site in question was placed before the Assembly and after completion of all necessary formalities, the work had started way back in the year 1996 but now on the same piece of land, the State Government is now implementing different project, thus solemn promise announced on the floor of the Assembly is being broken. The State Government has abandoned the Old Project on account of paucity of funds and the delay in progress. This ground is purely illusory in nature as the same is contrary to the report of C.A.G. referred to above. In this report, it has been clearly indicated that the Ambedkar Udyan Project has started on the adjoining land from the funds of contingency whereas due to lack of resources Indira Gandhi Pratishthan Project was abandoned although Rs. 7.85 crores had already been spent on the said project. 22. Sri C.B. Pandey and Sri Maheshwari in all fairness submitted that they would not repeat the arguments, which had already been advanced by Dr. Ashok Nigam and will not waste unnecessary time of the Court. They, therefore, adopted the arguments made by Dr. Ashok Nigam. However, Sri C.B. Pandey on the strength of the decisions given by the Apex Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3751 ; Balco Employees' Union v. Union of India and others, M.I. Builder Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2001) 1 AWC 20 . Argued that even if the decision taken by the Government to construct the New Project allotted for Old Project is treated to be a policy decision, this Court can show interference as instant decision is a glaring example of arbitrariness and mala fides. 23. State of U.P. and others, (2001) 1 AWC 20 . Argued that even if the decision taken by the Government to construct the New Project allotted for Old Project is treated to be a policy decision, this Court can show interference as instant decision is a glaring example of arbitrariness and mala fides. 23. Sri S.C. Mishra, learned Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the sheet-anchor of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that there is no rhyme or reason for taking the impugned decision of constructing New Project on the land allotted for construction of Indira Gandhi Pratishthan. Inviting our attention to the statement of the Minister and copy of the Note dated 24.1.1997 contained in Annexure-R3 to the rejoinder affidavit, he submitted that sufficient reasons have been disclosed in the above documents. Further, the Indira Gandhi Pratishthan is neither a Trust nor a Body but is only a project and it is the prerogative of the Government to change the place of one Project to another place and it does not violate any law. The State Government considering the fact that the funds were not available in respect of Indira Gandhi Pratishthan and no significant progress was made in the Project since 1984-85, the Government took a decision to shift the Project from the aforesaid land to another land situated in the same vicinity and it was also decided that since the land in question is contiguous to Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Smarak, it would be appropriate to construct "Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Antarrashtriya Parivartan Pustakalaya Evam Sangrahalaya" on the said land. He also brought to our notice that Rs. ten crores have been spent in construction and further four statue of social workers and reformers, namely, Mahatma Jyotiba Phulley, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj and Narayan Guru have been erected and placed on the said land. Further, the Central Government has already granted assistance of Rs. 15 crores for the year 2002-2003. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the State Government has neither intended nor intends to make any discrimination in promoting the memories of national leaders but as the situation of the land in Vipin Khand was most suited for the New Project as such a policy decision was taken to establish the same. 24. 15 crores for the year 2002-2003. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the State Government has neither intended nor intends to make any discrimination in promoting the memories of national leaders but as the situation of the land in Vipin Khand was most suited for the New Project as such a policy decision was taken to establish the same. 24. Sri S.C. Mishra, learned Advocate General while answering to the allegations made in the writ petition, contended that a wrong information has deliberately been given to this Court that the Old Project, namely, Indira Gandhi Pratishthan has been completely abandoned or shelved and in its place the present project has been substituted. As a matter of fact a huge complex of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Smarak, Atithi Grah having 24 sites as also Jan Suvidha Parisar and Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Stadium had already come up in the adjoining area, it was decided to establish an International library and museum to preserve the works and belongings of the great personalities, who dedicated themselves to the cause of social transformations and upliftment of the weak and the oppressed anywhere in the world. Establishing the New Project on the said land in the vicinity of the Smarak itself was taken considering the structures standing in the surroundings and convenience of the general public. It is wrong to say that the decision to construct the New Project on the same land has been taken on account of different political ideology. Infact no political influence is involved in taking the impugned decision and it is unfortunate the projects aimed for upliftment of socially underprivileged classes are being viewed politically. 25. Refuting the allegations made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that construction raised at the cost of public exchequer has been demolished, learned Advocate General contended that it has been admitted by the Petitioners themselves that only boundary was constructed and no other significant construction developing the Indira Gandhi Pratishthan was ever constructed. It is wrong to say that the State Government did not approach the Central Planning Commission to complete the Indira Gandhi Pratishthan Project in the same way as has been done in the case of New Project. There was no occasion for the Government to approach the Central Planning Commission for assistance when it was decided in the year 1996 to invite private entrepreneurs for developing the same. There was no occasion for the Government to approach the Central Planning Commission for assistance when it was decided in the year 1996 to invite private entrepreneurs for developing the same. It is also wrong to allege that the Government has abandoned or shelved the Old Project. As a matter of fact, for the reasons indicated above, only it has been shifted and on the direction of the Government, the Lucknow Development Authority had already earmarked 10 acres of land in Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar. A decision has also been taken that the Lucknow Development Authority and HUDCO shall jointly construct the Old Project and in furtherance of the said Project HUDCO is taking necessary steps. 26. A question regarding maintainability of the writ petition as Public Interest Litigation and on the ground of laches was also raised during the course of final hearing. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners have pointed out that similar questions were also raised at the time of admission and this Court after hearing the counsel for the parties had admitted the writ petition. We find force in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners as from the record it appears that a Division Bench of this Court had admitted the writ petition on 21.11.2002. Consequently, the learned Advocate General addressed the Court on the merits of the case. 27. Arguing on the merits of the case, learned Advocate General submitted that no rights of the Petitioners or of the public at large have either been infringed or affected by the impugned decision taken by the State Government to construct "Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Antarrashtriya Samajik Parivartan Pustakalaya Evam Sangrahalaya" and shifting of the Old Project on a different land but in the same vicinity. According to him, the situation of the land in Vipin Khand was most suited for the New Project on account of it being adjacent to "Ambedkar Udyan" as such the decision in question was taken and it is absolutely false and incorrect to say that this decision was taken with the mala fide intention or for ulterior motives. The aim to construct this project is to preserve the literature of contributions made by Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar towards social transformation and upliftment of the underprivileged and similar contribution made by the other great men in other parts of the world. 28. The aim to construct this project is to preserve the literature of contributions made by Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar towards social transformation and upliftment of the underprivileged and similar contribution made by the other great men in other parts of the world. 28. Learned Advocate General placing reliance on Union of India and Others Vs. Jaswant Rai Kochhar and Others, AIR 1996 SC 1 352 submitted that the State Government is fully competent to convert the use of particular land acquired for one public purpose for another public purpose. On the strength of Apex Court's decision in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3751 , BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 2002 SC 350 (paragraphs 46 and 47), Kunwar Pal Singh Rathi v. State of U.P. (judgment decided by this Court), M/s. Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration and Others, AIR 2001 SC 1447 , State of Punjab and Others Vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga Etc. Etc., AIR 1998 SC 1703 Sri S.C. Mishra argued with great vehemence that the Government took a policy decision to construct the New Project on the land allotted for the Old Project as the situation of the land in Vipin Khand was most suited for the New Project and to shift the Old Project to another land which too falls in the same vicinity of Gomtinagar. The decision of the Government being a policy decision, normally the courts should not weigh the pros and cons of the policy or to scrutinize it and test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition for the purpose of annulling it. Further, it is not within the domain of the Court to take exception of the policy decision taken by the State Government, howsoever bad or wasteful, it may be. According to him, it is well settled that it is not in the domain of the courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is good or a better public policy can be evolved and further transgression by the Courts into the field of policy decision of the Government has been prohibited after enunciation of the principles by the Apex Court in the above referred cases. 29. 29. Much has been said by the learned Advocate General that the impugned decision is a policy decision and as such, this Court is not competent to interfere in the policy decision and say that the Government ought to have taken the decision as suggested by the Court. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to refer the meaning of word "Policy" and "Public Policy" as defined in various Dictionaries. 30. In Grocier New Webster's Dictionary (page 304) "Policy" has been defined as a selected, planned line of conduct in the light of which individual decisions are made and coordination achieved. In Legal Glossary (1993, page 250) "policy" means a course of action adopted as advantageous or expedient. According to the Oxford Dictionary the word "Policy" means political sagacity, State-craft, prudent conduct, sagacity, craftiness, 'course of action adopted by Government'. According to Webster's New International Dictionary "policy" means a settled or definite course or method adopted and followed by a Government, institution, body or individual : a civil or ecclesiastical policy; Government; the science of Government. 31. In Law Lexicon with Legal Maxims it has been mentioned that the general head of "public policy" covers a wide range of topics, such as for example, trading with the enemy in time of war, stifling prosecutions, chaperty and maintenance, and various other matter's; it has even been said in the House of Lords that public policy is always an unsafe and treacherous ground for legal decision. In Black's Law Dictionary "Public Policy" mean community common sense and common conscience, extended and applied throughout the State to matters of public morals, health, safety, welfare, and the like; it is that general and well settled public opinion relating to man's plan, palpable duty to his fellowmen, having due regard to all circumstances of each particular relation and situation. In Words and Phrases (West Publishing Co.) the word "public policy" generally means that imports something that is uncertain and fluctuating, varying with the changing economic needs, social customs and moral aspiration of the people. Lord Wright in his Legal Essays and Addresses (Vol. III, pages 76 and 78) stated that public policy like any other branch of the common law ought to be and I think is, governed by the judicial use of precedents.... Lord Wright in his Legal Essays and Addresses (Vol. III, pages 76 and 78) stated that public policy like any other branch of the common law ought to be and I think is, governed by the judicial use of precedents.... If it is said that rules of public policy have to be moulded to suit new conditions of a changing world, that is true, but the same is true with the principles of the canon law generally; Lord Lindley held in Janson v. Driefontein Consolidated Mines Ltd. that "a contract or other branch which is against public policy i.e. against the general interest of the country is illegal." 32. In Gherulal Parakh Vs. Mahadeodas Maiya and Others, AIR 1959 SC 781 the Supreme Court while defining the word "Public Policy" or the "Policy of the Law" has held as under : Public policy or the policy of the law is an illusive concept; it has been described as "untrustworthy guide", "variable quality", "uncertain one", "unruly horse", etc. The primary duty of a Court of Law is to enforce a promise which the parties have made and to uphold the sanctity of contract which form the basis of society, but in certain cases, the court may relieve them of their duty on a rule founded on what is called the public policy; for want of better words Lord Atkin describes that something done contrary to public policy is a harmful thing, but the doctrine is extended not only to harmful cases but also to harmful tendencies; this doctrine of public policy is only a branch of common law, and just like any other branch of common law it is governed by precedents; the principles have been crystallized under different heads and though it is permissible for courts to expound and apply them to different situations, it should only be invoked in clear and incontestable cases of harm to the public. 33. In Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another, AIR 1986 SC 1571 the Apex Court observed as under : "Public policy, is not the policy of a particular Government. It connotes some matter which concerns the public good and the public interest. The principles governing public policy must be and are capable, on proper occasion, of expansion or modification. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another, AIR 1986 SC 1571 the Apex Court observed as under : "Public policy, is not the policy of a particular Government. It connotes some matter which concerns the public good and the public interest. The principles governing public policy must be and are capable, on proper occasion, of expansion or modification. If there is no head of public policy which covers a case, then the court must in consonance with public conscience and in keeping with public good and public interest declare such practice to be opposed to public policy. Above all, in deciding any cases which may not be covered by authority, Courts should be guided by the Preamble to the Constitution and the Principles underlying the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. 34. In Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Others, AIR 1991 SC 101 while observing that there is no well recognized head of public policy, the Supreme Court held as under : "This Court also angulated the question from the perspective of public policy or contract being opposed to public policy. The phrases "public policy", "opposed to public policy" or "contrary to public policy" are incapable of precised definition. It is valued to meet the public good or the public interest. What is public good or in the public interest or what would be injurious or harmful to the public good or the public interest vary from time to time with the change of the circumstances. New concepts take place of old ones. The transactions which were considered at one time as against public policy were held by the courts to be in public interest and were found to be enforceable. Therefore, this Court held in Brojo Nath case that "there has been no well recognized head of public policy, the courts have not shirked from extending it to new transactions and changed circumstances and have at times not even flinched from inventing a new head of public policy." 35. Thus it is clear that the term 'public policy', however, does not admit of any definition and it cannot easily be explained. It may vary as the habits, opinions, and welfare of a people may vary, and what may be a policy of one State may not be so in another State. Thus it is clear that the term 'public policy', however, does not admit of any definition and it cannot easily be explained. It may vary as the habits, opinions, and welfare of a people may vary, and what may be a policy of one State may not be so in another State. The expression 'public policy' is a very certain one and it should not be carelessly extended to any case for what is the policy of the public at one time may not be a sound public policy later on. One of the eminent Judges in England has defined the 'Public Policy' as an unruly horse, and there are series of decisions divergent in character where the Court sometimes refused and on different occasions enforced an agreement. It was further observed that it is a vague and perhaps unsatisfactory term, a treacherous ground for legal decision and a very unsuitable and treacherous foundation on which to build. 36. We are of the considered opinion that there is no blanket ban upon the courts in interfering with the policy decision taken by the Government. It is trite law that it is mandatory upon the decision-making body to act fairly, in accordance with law and it should be free from any influence. This Court can also show interference when it finds that the powers are not exercised in accordance with mandate of the Legislature and the court by such interference, helps the good governance by constantly reminding the Government and its officers they should act within the four corners of the statute. Even the policy decision taken by the State Government has to pass the test of Articles 14 and 16 as held in Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 2002 SC 2877 . Their Lordships observed in paragraph 12 as under : "There can be little doubt that the impugned circular is the product of the policy-decision taken by the State Government. Even then, as rightly pointed out by the High Court, such decision has to pass the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. If the policy decision, which in the present case has the undoubted effect of deviating from the normal and salutary rule of selection based on merit is subversive of the doctrine of equality, it cannot sustain. If the policy decision, which in the present case has the undoubted effect of deviating from the normal and salutary rule of selection based on merit is subversive of the doctrine of equality, it cannot sustain. It should be free from the vice of arbitrariness and conform to the well settled norms both positive and negative underlying Articles 14 and 16, which together with Article 15 form part of the constitutional Code of equality." 37. In M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this Court quashed the decision taken by the Nagar Mahapalika to construct an underground shopping complex in Jhandewala Park situated at Aminabad Market, Lucknow, on the ground of it being arbitrary and illegal. M/s. M.I. Builders, being aggrieved, approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court dismissed the appeal preferred by M.I. Builders. The Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal referred to the observations made by it in State of Bombay v. Laxmi Das Ranchhoddas, which are reproduced hereunder : "It may be that interference by the High Court may result in inconvenience or difficulty in administration. But what we have to guard against is a much greater evil. When we find in the modern State wide powers entrusted to Government, powers, which affect the property and person of the citizen, it is the duty of the courts to see that those wide powers are exercised in conformity with what the legislature has prescribed. We are not oblivious of the fact that in order that the modern State should function, the Government must be armed with very large powers. But the High Court does not interfere with the exercise of those powers. The High Court only interferes when it finds that those powers are not exercised in accordance with the mandate of the Legislature." 38. In BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 2002 SC 350 , the Supreme Court while stating that the Courts should not strike down a policy at the behest of the Petitioner merely because it has been urged that as different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical but also held that the Court can interfere in a policy decision if it is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. 39. Now we advert to the present case. 39. Now we advert to the present case. The decision of the Government taken in the year 1984 to establish a memorial in the name of Indira Gandhi over 25 acres of land in Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow with certain aims and objects enumerated above, to be a policy decision. Similarly, the decision of the Government taken in June, 2002 to construct "Baba Saheb Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Antarrashtriya Samajik Parivartan Pustakalaya Evam Sangrahalaya" with the aims and objects as mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the State, can be viewed as a policy decision. But we are unable to accept that the decision of the Government to construct the New Project over the land which was allotted for construction of Indira Gandhi Pratishthan to be a policy decision. In other words, the selection of a site for construction of a building, center or any other structure on a particular land cannot be said or termed as policy decision but can easily be said to be an administrative action. At this juncture, we are constrained to put on record that after pronouncement of the principles in various decisions by the Apex Court that power of making a policy decision is in the domain of the executive authority of the State and the Court should not embark on the unchartered ocean of public policy and should not question the efficacy or otherwise of such policy, a new trend has evolved and the State, almost in every case, is coming with the case that the result is outcome of the policy decision. Even the orders passed by the Collector, Commissioner or by any other executive authority, is termed as a policy decision. 40. No doubt, it is true that the courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on ground of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness. It is well within the domain of the State to change its policy from time to time looking to the public interest and the changed circumstances but what we want to canvass is that all policy decisions are the actions of the State but all State actions are not the policy decisions. 41. There are three stages with regard to an undertaking of infrastructural project. 41. There are three stages with regard to an undertaking of infrastructural project. One is conception or planning, second is decision to undertake the project and the third is execution of the project. The conception and the decision to undertake a project is only to be regarded as a policy decision. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the selection of a land i.e. the land selected for the New Project which was already allotted for the Old Project way back in the year 1984 cannot be termed to be a policy decision. 42. Before proceeding further, we would like to state at this juncture that the Petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the decision taken during the President Rule (Annexures-13 and 14 of writ petition No. 6851 (MB) of 2002) for change of the original shape of the Indira Gandhi Pratishthan Project by constructing international convention center, exhibition center and a five star hotel after inviting private entrepreneurs. According to the Petitioners, the change of basic concept of the memorial built in the name of Indira Gandhi Pratishthan was arbitrary, unfair and have no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved and was contrary to the decision of the elected Government taken earlier. 43. The decision to construct Indira Gandhi Pratishthan was taken in the year 1984 by the then Government in order to pay homage to the late Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi. As stated earlier, 25 acres of land in Vipin Khand, Gomtinagar, Lucknow was allotted by the Lucknow Development Authority. It appears from the record that several stages of construction such as filling and leveling of the land, construction of support bundh wall for safeguarding the project, 10-12 feet high boundary wall around the land, construction of water well and pump for taking out underground water, Electric Transformer, Plantation of trees has already been accomplished. It has been indicated in the writ petition that Rs. 8 crores was incurred towards land cost whereas Rs. 3.11 crores were spent in above construction. Later on, the decision of constructing a Five Star Hotel and other structure was taken over the land allotted for Indira Gandhi Project. The letter dated 7th February, 1997 contained as Annexure-R2 to the rejoinder affidavit reveals that this decision was taken on account of slow progress of the Project and further the increased cost of the Project. Later on, the decision of constructing a Five Star Hotel and other structure was taken over the land allotted for Indira Gandhi Project. The letter dated 7th February, 1997 contained as Annexure-R2 to the rejoinder affidavit reveals that this decision was taken on account of slow progress of the Project and further the increased cost of the Project. It clearly emerges out from the record that this decision was never implemented and according to the Petitioner, the Government did not notify the said decision and it was never made public. Petitioners have come to know about the said decision only when the present controversy arose. Now, the Government without modifying the decision taken by the Governor as contained in Annexures-13 and 14 to the writ petition, decided to construct "Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Antarrashtriya Samajik Parivartan Pustakalaya Evam Sangrahalaya" on the same land which was allocated for the construction of Indira Gandhi Pratishthan. The stand of the Government is that the situation of property in Vipin Khand was most suited for the New Project and on account of this reason, the site which was allotted for construction of Indira Gandhi Pratishthan was selected for the New Project. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the decision taken during the President Rule as contained in Annexures-13 and 14 to the writ petition is meaningless and has no significance. 44. Indira Gandhi Pratishthan, a memorial to late Smt. Indira Gandhi at Lucknow, is visualized as combination of symbolic and institutionalized monument. It is visualized as a centre encompassing all arts. specially societal structure, national view and cosmology. According to the Petitioner, late Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India strongly believed in welcoming and accepting the best from any part of the globe but the end product was unmistakably Indian which was basic thread of Indianness which has kept the country together. When the decision by the present Government was taken to construct the New Project on the same land allotted for construction of Indira Gandhi Pratishthan has hurt their sentiments. They further added that the efforts of the opposite parties to dilute the aims and objects of the Indira Gandhi Pratishthan is an insult to the memory of the national leader. When the decision by the present Government was taken to construct the New Project on the same land allotted for construction of Indira Gandhi Pratishthan has hurt their sentiments. They further added that the efforts of the opposite parties to dilute the aims and objects of the Indira Gandhi Pratishthan is an insult to the memory of the national leader. Further, converting the project of one national leader into that of the other hurts the sentiments of a large number of followers and admirers of the departed leader throughout the length and breadth not only of the State of U.P. but the whole country. Thus, the action on the part of the Government is contrary to the concept of good governance. It has also been brought to our notice by the Petitioners that the design of the Indira Gandhi Project was not only prepared but duly approved by the State and further the said design was prepared according to the ecological area and surroundings of the 25 acres of land allotted for the Project. Now, in the event the Project is shifted elsewhere and the land is reduced from 25 acres to 10 acres of land, the considerable amount incurred in this regard would go waste causing great financial loss from the public exchequer. 45. Similarly, learned Advocate General, Sri S.C. Mishra has brought to our notice that after the decision taken by the State Government in June, 2002 to establish "Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Antarrashtriya Samajik Parivartan Pustakalaya Evam Sangrahalaya" about rupees ten crores have already been incurred and the following construction has been raised upto 20.11.2002 : (i) Main Gate (costs complete of about Rs. 25 lacs) (ii) Memorial consisting installed and of four statues unveiled (Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Antarrashtriya Samajik Parivartan Pustakalaya Evam Sangrahalaya" about rupees ten crores have already been incurred and the following construction has been raised upto 20.11.2002 : (i) Main Gate (costs complete of about Rs. 25 lacs) (ii) Memorial consisting installed and of four statues unveiled (Dr. Ambedkar, Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj, Jyotiba Phule and Narayan Guru) (iii) Pedestal and complete Ramp to reach statue (iv) Administrative complete F.F. Block G.F. slab being laid (v) Library G.S. Slab being laid (vi) Museum in Foun- complete G.F. dation progress (vii) Obelisk foundation complete (symbol of social transformation) Podium in progress It is, therefore, stated that after unveiling of aforesaid four statues of great social reformers, the place has acquired the status/symbol of faith and reverence of under-privileged/ Dalit members of the society and to them it has acquired the status and place of reverence and in case construction is jeopardized at this stage, the feeling of millions of such people shall be greatly hurt. Clarifying further, he reiterated his earlier submission that the State Government neither intended nor intends to make any discrimination in promoting the memories of national leaders but as the situation of the land in Vipin Khand was most suited for the New Project, as such, a decision was taken to establish the same. It is in this background that the Old Project has been shifted and on the direction of the Government, the Lucknow Development Authority had already earmarked 10 acres of land in Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar. A decision has also been taken that the Lucknow Development Authority and HUDCO shall jointly construct the Old Project and in furtherance of the said Project, HUDCO is taking necessary steps. 46. At this juncture, it may be mentioned that the relevant record was produced by Sri S.C. Mishra, Advocate General. Sri P.P. Srivastava, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Sishir Jain, produced the record pertaining to U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, the agency, which has been given work for making construction. The record of the Lucknow Development Authority, which has been selected as Nodal Agency has been produced by Sri Umesh Chandra, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Krishna Chandra. 47. Perusal of the relevant record indicates that the Chief Architect of the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam by his letter dated 16.9.2002 has sought the approval of the Lucknow Development Authority regarding approval of the drawing of the New Project. Advocate assisted by Sri Krishna Chandra. 47. Perusal of the relevant record indicates that the Chief Architect of the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam by his letter dated 16.9.2002 has sought the approval of the Lucknow Development Authority regarding approval of the drawing of the New Project. After examining the plan submitted by the Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, the Lucknow Development Authority has approved the same. While approving the drawing, the Lucknow Development Authority has also requested the Nodal Agency to ensure arrangement of Rain Water harvesting including other arrangement. Needless to mention here that Sections 14 and 15 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development which, inter alia, provide that the departments of the Government are not required to seek prior permission of Development Authority and they are only required to submit the plan for the construction made by the Department of Government. A perusal of the letter dated 28th September, 2002 which is available on the file of the Government shows that the Secretary, Housing has also requested the Lucknow Development Authority to make a time schedule regarding construction of the Old Project and the Lucknow Development Authority in turn has informed the Secretary, Housing that time schedule for construction can be framed only after receipt of Financial Feasibility, which is being prepared by the HUDCO. 48. Now, we come to the Writ Petition No. 6978 of 2002 filed by Sri Ashok Pandey, who has come up, inter alia, with the prayer to quash the decision taken for construction of Indira Gandhi Pratishthan and rename the Parks, Project and Programmes, which are in the name of Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. 49. After hearing Ashok Pandey in person and perusing the averments made in the writ petition, we have no hesitation in saying that the petition has been drafted in a very bad taste. At best, we can describe the arguments made by the Petitioner to be a cocktail of legal jugglery and politics, reasons and extravagance. Certain arguments made by the Petitioner even cannot be reduced in writing. Unnecessarily, members of Bar have also been dragged in the litigation by impleading all the counsel appearing in other petitions as Respondents. We deprecate the stand taken by the Petitioner in his petition. Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions or non-compliance by the State with its constitutional or statutory duties. Unnecessarily, members of Bar have also been dragged in the litigation by impleading all the counsel appearing in other petitions as Respondents. We deprecate the stand taken by the Petitioner in his petition. Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions or non-compliance by the State with its constitutional or statutory duties. None of these contingencies arise in the present petition. We are pained to observe that the Petitioner being a Member of Bar and an Officer of the Court has not been able to understand what public interest litigation is meant to be. Further, we are of the view that every matter of public interest or curiosity cannot be the subject matter of PIL. Suffice to say, that public interest litigation is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs and if such petitions are encouraged, then it would dilute the aims and objects of the Public Interest Litigation. 50. Before concluding, we would like to say that we are not on merits of the policy decision taken by the Government to translate into reality the New Project but on ultimate analysis, we are of the view that the balancing act should have been performed by the Government. The report of Comptroller and Auditor General dated 31.3.1998, referred above, shows that the Old Project has been abandoned after spending rupees 7.85 crores on the ground of shortage of resources whereas on the adjoining land "Ambedkar Udyan" is being constructed, the cost of which is much higher. Even believing the statement of Advocate General that the Project, namely, Indira Gandhi Pratishthan has neither been abandoned nor shelved, it is difficult for us to believe that the funding was not available for the Old Project and there was no significant construction as such the Project has only been shifted and 10 acres of land has been allocated in Vibhuti Khand because as per report of the Comptroller and Auditor General sufficient amount of money has been spent on the construction and later it has been abandoned on account of shortage of fund but surprisingly, fund has been made available for construction of "Ambedkar Udyan" on the adjacent land. Further the allocation of land in Vibhuti Khand, Gomtinagar for the Old Project smacks arbitrariness as only 10 acres of land has been allotted by the State Government overlooking the fact that the authorities concerned after taking in account the overall requirements and the purpose has allotted 25 acres of land, but now only ten acres of land has been allocated. It may be mentioned that architectural design for the Old Project was prepared keeping the area of the land available for the Project. Further, the architectural design for the project on 25 acres of land was finalized after a countrywide design contest and later it was approved by the authorities concerned. The whole exercise is to be repeated again as the earlier design was prepared for 25 acres of land. 51. We are of the considered opinion that any order, which is to be passed now is to be passed keeping in mind the conflicting rights and sentiments. If for one set of people, who are the followers and admirers of the departed leander converting the Project of a national leader into that of other has hurt their sentiments, for the other set of people, who are said to be underprivileged/Dalit Members, unveiling of statues of social reformers has acquired the symbol of faith and reverence. Further, the huge public money spent by the Government on behalf of the public must not be wasted, as such, we propose to pass following orders : (1) For the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to show any interference in the decision taken by the Government to construct New Project and the opposite parties may make construction in relation to New Project, but at the same time, we provide that the Government shall make available 25 acres of land instead of 10 acres for the Old Project and shall also frame a time schedule for completion of the Old Project, the decision to construct the same was taken way back in the year 1984. In case, the land of the area mentioned above is not available, then it can be a little less but while allocating the land, the authorities shall keep in the mind the design and the layout plan already prepared for Indira Gandhi Pratishthan. In case, the land of the area mentioned above is not available, then it can be a little less but while allocating the land, the authorities shall keep in the mind the design and the layout plan already prepared for Indira Gandhi Pratishthan. Since, it has been brought to our notice that the State Government is going to start various other new projects, as such, the State Government shall make earnest efforts to provide additional fund for this Project, besides the fund already available for the Old Project. The State Government may take the Central assistance for completion of the project as much delay has already occurred in giving final shape to the Project. (2) In view of what has been stated in the preceding paragraphs and the facts that the decisions taken contained in Annexures-13 and 14 to the Writ Petition No. 6851/MB/2002, which were taken during the President Rule, were never implemented and thereafter much developments have taken place over the land in question as such the above decisions contained in Annexure-13 (letter dated 31.7.1996 issued by the Joint Secretary, Housing) and the decision dated 7.2.1997 contained in Annexure-14 are hereby quashed. (3) In view of the above, Writ Petition No. 6851 (MB) of 2002, R.B. Singh and two Ors. v. State of U.P. and others; Writ Petition No. 6874 (MB) of 2002, Hemant Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and others; Writ Petition No. 6886 (MB) of 2002, Vinod Mishra v. State of U.P. and others shall stand decided in above terms. Interim orders are discharged. (4) Since we have indicated above that Public Interest Litigation is now tending to become publicity interest litigation and such a vexatious petitions under the colour of PIL are being filed to settle personal scores. Moreover, we have already held that the Court in exercise of its power of judicial review does not ordinarily interfere with the policy decision unless the policy can be faulted on the ground of mala fide, unreasonableness or arbitrariness. Petitioner of writ petition No. 6878 (MB) of 2002 has failed to show any good ground for interference. Accordingly, writ petition No. 6978 (MB) of 2002, is hereby dismissed.