JUDGMENT - SHAH A.P., J.: - Rule. Respondents waive service. 1. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. Perused the papers and heard Advocates. 2. The challenge is to the allotment of plots to certain newspaper and publication houses in a prime area at Palm Breach Road, Navi Mumbai at concessional rates, resulting in enormous loss to 2nd respondent CIDCO . The 2nd respondent-City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited- (CIDCO for short) is the New Town Development Authority for Navi Mumbai appointed under section 113(3-A) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (M.R.T.P. Act for short). The object of CIDCO is to secure the layout and its development of new town in accordance with the proposals approved in that behalf under the provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act. The New Bombay Disposal of Lands Regulations, 1975 enable CIDCO to dispose of the land for various uses either by public auction or by tender or at a fixed price as the Corporation may determine from time to time. Based on this, the comprehensive land, pricing and disposal policy indicating the types of land uses, land prices, method of disposal etc. has been duly approved by CIDCO from time to time. It appears that till 1997, there was no allotment policy as such for newspaper, printing and publishing houses to be set up in Navi Mumbai. However, requests from few newspaper houses such as "Samana" and "Tarun Bharat" were received during this period. Accordingly for the fist time the policy guidelines for allotment of plots to newspaper printing and publishing groups were formulated which were duly approved vide Board's Resolution No. 7411 dated September 12, 1997. 3. After approval of the above policy guidelines, two newspaper groups namely, "Samana" and "Tarun Bharat" who were interested to get the land allotted were informed the initial policy and the rates approved by the Board. However, not being satisfied with the said rates, they approached the State Government to seek its intervention for allotment at prime location and at a cheap rate. The State Government in response to their request in 1998 directed CIDCO to allot land to these two newspaper groups in Sector III in Vashi admeasuring 8000 sq. meters each at the prime location and for highly subsidized rates. The State Government in response to their request in 1998 directed CIDCO to allot land to these two newspaper groups in Sector III in Vashi admeasuring 8000 sq. meters each at the prime location and for highly subsidized rates. The allotment was contrary to the policy of CIDCO in all the three respects, namely, (i) location; (ii) the area to be allotted and (iii) premium payable on such plots. The order of the Government categorically recorded that these rates be treated as special case and not to be followed in future allotments. 4. Again in September 1999, State Government further directed CIDCO to allot plots of land to "Dainik Pudhari", "Vivek" and "Lokmat" at the same concessional rates adopted in the case of "Samana" and "Tarun Bharat". These allotments were also at the prime location, namely, sector 30 and 30-A. On August 5, 2000, a comprehensive and allotment policy for newspaper groups was reframed and approved by the Board vide Board Resolution No. 8180 dated September 5, 2000. The policy was as follows : Area to be allotted Rates of Lease premium a) For circulation between 10001 to 25000 copies 1000 sq. meters A) For 50% area of 100% of RP with FSI 1.00 b) For circulation between 25001 to 75000 copies 1001 sq. meters B) For 50% @ of 300% of RP to 2500 sq. with FSI 1.00 (if area is below meters 100-m2 or @ of 450% of the RP c) for circulation with FSI 1.5 (if area is above more than 1000 m2) 75000 copies d) The News Paper Agency should be registered with the Registrar of Newspapers of India and should have A, B, C Certificate of circulation for preceding three years. e) As per this policy the maximum area allocable was 4000 m2. 5. Three more publishing houses, namely, (i) Gavkari Prakashan, (ii) M/s Amit Publications Pvt. Ltd. and (iii) M/s Satej Prakashan applied to CIDCO for allotment of plot to them. In terms of the policy dated September 5, 2000 the said 3 publishing houses had to comply with the terms and conditions of that policy. They instead approached the State Government for its intervention for allotment of the plots to them at Palm Beach Road at concessional rated and not at Press Complex. In terms of the policy dated September 5, 2000 the said 3 publishing houses had to comply with the terms and conditions of that policy. They instead approached the State Government for its intervention for allotment of the plots to them at Palm Beach Road at concessional rated and not at Press Complex. Promptly, the State Government directed CIDCO to have 3 plots allotted to them at the rates determined by the State Government and outside the Press Enclave vide its letter dated September 12, 2001. The letter of the Government stated that the policy of the Government In allotting the plots earlier be treated as a policy for treating such types of cases. Thus, for the third time, the State Government interfered with CIDCO's policy for allotment of land to newspaper groups. Significantly in almost all the cases except Amit Publications Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Satej Prakashan who have yet not submitted their A.B.C. certificated and final allotment letter is not issued in their favour, all other plots have been commercially exploited by different builders and none of these plots were used for setting up the newspaper printing press of any incidental purpose. It appears that only a token area is shown as reserved for the purposes of press. On September 9, 2002, therefore, CIDCO again revised its policy for allotment of plots at concessional rates for the newspaper groups. In this policy too, the earlier guideline of allotting the maximum area of 4000 sq. meters was retained. A.B.C. certificate was now relaxed. The significant change in the policy was that (i) that the publishing houses should furnish the details of area requirement for printing press, office, editorial wing, publishing house, advertising wing, residence of staff etc. On the said plots; (ii) that they should disclose their financial sources for allotment and construction over the said plot; (iii) that they should give a time bound programme for completion of such construction, resulting in automatic termination of agreement, if the time bound schedule is not adhered to and (iv) that only the plots at Press Plaza be allotted. 6. The framing of the new revised policy proved to be totally futile. 6. The framing of the new revised policy proved to be totally futile. By now a word has spread that the publishing houses could get a plot for a song, that the policy of the CIDCO remains only on paper and that everything was available with the little influence in the State Govt. Accordingly there was a splurge of applications (about 46 in number) for allotment of the plots by various publishing houses, out of which 38 were found to be eligible. The board has recorded in its meeting dated May 12, 2003 that "Allotment of plots to Printing Presses is fast becoming an extremely losing proposition to CIDCO. The policy prepared and revised during the last two years has brought in a large number of applicants leading to a run on CIDCO's prime properties. Most of these applicants have access to the VVIPs and insist upon the allocation of the most prime plots particularly in or around Palm Beach Road. Many of these Printing Presses are not from the neighbourhood but find it lucrative to get the plots at concessional price and sell to the local builders and get both and limited area for their Printing Press processes for free. It is our initial estimate that if we honour all eligible applicants as received today CIDCO will lose abut Rs. 250 crores in the subsidy offered for the printing press managements." In the same meeting it was further recorded that the reasons for this enormous response are: i) Easy transferability of plots to builders who in turn makes this into commercial propositions and give a small area for printing press; (ii) Enormous increase in the land prices making the sale of residential and commercial activities extremely lucrative at the costs of CIDCO's revenues; and (iii) Lack of will to take action against the management of printing presses who sell the premises for activities that do not relate to printing press promotion by NMMC. It was further noted that the losses due to the concessional allotments will have to be loaded to the remaining land which will result in the upset price escalating so high that on one hand it may not be affordable and on the other it will defeat the main aim of the Corporation i.e. to provide housing to the weaker and middle income group at affordable prices. 7. 7. In the meeting dated May 12, 2003, the CIDCO proposed to frame a new policy for the allotment of plots to the newspaper agencies as shown below. (A) Eligibility Condition : i) The news papers/magazines should be registered with the Registrar of News Papers of India; ii) The aid News Papers/Magazines should also be registered within the territory of Maharashtra State and also having published from the Maharashtra State, can only be considered for the allotment of plots under this policy. iii) The said News Papers/Magazines should also be registered with the Audit Bureau of Circulation and should have A, B, C certificated of circulation for preceding three years. iv) The newspaper agencies should submit the Project Report of the Printing and Publishing House they intend to establish in Navi Mumbai giving details about area required for printing press, office, editorial wing, publishing house, advertising wing as well as area required for residence of staff along with architectural plans. v) The details of source of finance to meet the expenditure for purchase of plot as well as construction of building should be submitted. vi) Submission of a time bound programme for completion of construction and starting of actual functions of the press. Failure to observe the time bound programme shall result intermination of agreement. (B) Area to be allotted : i) Upto 1200 sq.m. : For newspapers having circulation between 10,000 to 20,000 i.e. Regional legal circulation. ii) 1201 sq.m. to : For newspapers having circulation 2500 sq.m. : between 25,000 to 75,000 i.e. at State level. iii) 2500 sq.m. to : For newspapers particularly 4000 sq.m. : National level dailies having : circulation above 75,000 iv) Maximum area to be allotted should not exceed 4000 sq.m. v) Newspapers having less than 10,000 copies circulation may be given plots under Service Industry uses or constructed premises wherever available. (C) Rate of Lease Premium to be Charged : i) Area allotted shall be used for commercial purpose such as printing press and allied activities related to the same printing press only. No other use shall be permitted other than printing press and allied activity. (C) Rate of Lease Premium to be Charged : i) Area allotted shall be used for commercial purpose such as printing press and allied activities related to the same printing press only. No other use shall be permitted other than printing press and allied activity. ii) The lease premium as applicable for commercial use of the said plot shall be charged at the base rate suggested in Land Pricing and Disposal policy approved by the Board of Directors from time to time and prevailing at the time of allotment for such plots earmarked for commercial purpose. In the prevailing Land Pricing and Disposal Policy, the lease premium applicable for commercial purpose are shown below. Rs. 7500/- per sq.m. : For the area below 1000 (i.e. 300% of the : sq.m./with FSI 1.0 Reserve Price) Rs. 11,250/- per sq.m. : For the area 1000 sq.m. (i.e. 450% of the : above with FSI 1.5 Reserve Price) D) The plots for printing press and allied activities related to printing press will be carved out and allotted in sector 8, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai which is declared as "Press Complex". Under any circumstances, no other plot of land will be considered for allotment under press category outside the area of Press Complex in sector 8 of Sanpada, Navi Mumbai." It appears that in a further meeting held on November 25, 2003, four sites were earmarked for newspaper groups as Press Enclave, namely, (i) Sanpada, (ii) Nerul, (iii) Ghansoli and (iv) Kharghar and approximately 11.70 hectare of land and in all 57 plots were reserved for the said purpose. 8. Barely one month later, the State Government once again interfered with the policy and this time directed to allot plots to 3 new publishing houses, namely, (i) Ratnagiri Times (respondent No. 3) (ii) Navakal Times (respondent No. 4) and (iii) Apla Vartahar (respondent No. 5) again outside the Press Enclave and in excess of 4000 sq. meters at a heavily subsidized price. Out of the 3 plots two were in fact put to tender by CIDCO and the base price quoted in the said tender was Rs. 15, 000/- per sq. meters whereas the State has directed CIDCO to make allotment at the rates which works out to around Rs. 6400 per sq. meter. Even if we take the base rate of 15,000/- per sq. 15, 000/- per sq. meters whereas the State has directed CIDCO to make allotment at the rates which works out to around Rs. 6400 per sq. meter. Even if we take the base rate of 15,000/- per sq. meter as market price the CIDCO is likely to put to heavy loss as a consequence of the State directive. We may mention that the petitioner which is a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act had applied for allotment of one of the said three plots, namely, Plot No. 8 at the rate of Rs. 15000/- per sq. meter which was the base rate at the relevant time prescribed by CIDCO. The petitioner has alleged that the impugned allotments which have been made giving large concessions to the publishing houses have almost benefited the builders who are after constructing multistoried buildings are ruling the market. Thus, the very concept of making special concession to the publishing houses for allotment of plots for their own purpose has been defeated in as much as under the garb of giving concession to press they are in fact selling the plots to the builders, who in turn, determine the rates at which they are to be sold. 9. Mr. C.U. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the action of the State Government is not in the interest of public and the allotments have been made for extraneous consideration and for reasons other than merit. In any event, the allotment is not at all in the interest of public and in any case it is depleting the financial reserves of CIDCO. Learned Counsel pointed out that the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of Ratnagiri Times has been filed by one Chintaman Belhekar who is a partner in the builders firm by name M/s. Akshar Homes and the said M/s. Akshar Homes has paid the earnest money of Rs. 39 lacs. A feebal attempt was made by the Editor of Ratnagiri Times saying that he had taken this amount as a loan from the said Shri Belhekar who at one time was the representative of Ratnagiri Times. Be that as it may, we see absolutely no justification for allotment of plots to these publishing houses in prime locality and that too at a heavily subsidised rates in contravention of policy guidelines framed by CIDCO. Be that as it may, we see absolutely no justification for allotment of plots to these publishing houses in prime locality and that too at a heavily subsidised rates in contravention of policy guidelines framed by CIDCO. It has been brought on record that CIDCO has already suffered a loss in subsidy to the tune of Rs. 41.54 crores and if allotment is to be made to all the eligible applicants (38 in number) CIDCO is likely to lose nearly Rs. 220 crores. 10. Mr. Pandit, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the State Government fairly conceded that there is no policy laid down by the State for allotment of plots to newspapers and publishing houses, but according him the allotments made in the past are treated as policy and on that basis impugned directive is issued to CIDCO to allot the land in favour of publishing houses in question. Mr. Pandit urged that the Government is fully empowered to issue directions in exercise of powers under section 154 of the M.R.T.P. Act. We are unable to accede to the argument of the learned Counsel. Section 154 says that every "regional Board, planning and development authority" shall carry out such directions or instructions as may be issued from time to time by the State Government "for the efficient administration of this Act." In (Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa others)1, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1902, the Supreme Court construed a similar provision in Karnataka Act which empowered the Government to give directions to Bangalore Development Authority as are in its opinion necessary or expedient for carrying out the purpose of the Act. Rejecting the argument that the authorities are bound by all the directions of the Government irrespective of the nature or purpose of the direction the Court held that power of the Government is not unrestricted. The object of the directions must be to carry out the object of the Act and not contrary to it. Only such directions as are reasonable and necessary or expedient for carrying out the object of the enactment are contemplated by the section Therefore, in exercising the powers under section 154, the State Government is expected to act reasonably and rationally and for efficient administration of the Act. The State has no right to issue directions which are irrational, irrelevant and has no fairness or equality. The State has no right to issue directions which are irrational, irrelevant and has no fairness or equality. In any event the power of the State cannot be used for causing revenue losses to the Statutory Authority. The authorities are in a position of guardian of the properties which are made available at the disposal of the Planning Authority and powers should be used for the benefit at the public at large. Therefore, in our opinion, the impugned order of the State Government dated December 28, 2003 directing allotment in favour of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 cannot be sustained. The State Government has no power to issue the allotment order contrary to the policy of CIDCO as formulated and as amended thereafter from time to time. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned letter dated December 28, 2003. CIDCO is directed to refund the amount, if any, deposited by respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The plots in question may now be disposed of by CIDCO in accordance with its regulations and policy. We hasten to add that the press also needs to be protected and supported as being the fourth piller of democracy. CIDCO has formulated special policy for allotment to publishing houses and newspaper groups and four areas are specifically earmarked for this purpose and it will be open for CIDCO to consider the applications of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 afresh in the light of their policy. We may also mention that out of 8 allotments to newspaper groups/publishing houses possession of 6 plots have been already handed over and construction work is also started. Those cases may be reopened. However, the allotment in favour of Amit Publications and Satej Prakashan is not complete. CIDCO shall consider their applications afresh and pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made in this judgment. 11. It appears that the State Government at one stage had promised appointment of a Committee to look into the irregularities committed in allotment of plots, however, no steps seem to have been taken to establish the Committee. We direct the State Government to appoint a one man Committee consisting of Shri S.S. Tinaikar to look into the irregularities of the allotments made on the direction of the Government and make a report to this Court within 3 months. We direct the State Government to appoint a one man Committee consisting of Shri S.S. Tinaikar to look into the irregularities of the allotments made on the direction of the Government and make a report to this Court within 3 months. State and CIDCO will provide necessary infra structures to the Committee and co-operate with the Committee. 12. Stand over to August 9, 2004. 13. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 apply for stay of our order. Application is rejected. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated as true copy by the Associate/P.S. of this Court. Application rejected.