JUDGMENT Sapre, J. -- The decision rendered in this writ petition shall also govern disposal of other writ petition being W.P. No. 382 of 2004 as both, these writs are more or less identical in nature. This petition is filed by three petitioners as public interest litigation claiming following reliefs as are set out in detail in relief clause 7(i) to (vi) : "(i) That a writ direction or order in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or as deemed fit be issued directing the respondents to desist from all proposals of 'Re-densification' in the Central Area of Indore and to only approve such proposals which reduce or maintain the density as set out in the Master Plan. (ii) Record of State Government concerning its schemes of 'Re-densification of Indore City Area' with particular context of conversion of following areas to alternative commercial land use be called : a. Existing Central Jail complex. b. Gopal Mandir complex. c. Malharashram Higher Secondary School and Students Boarding House. d. Hukumchand Polyclinic and Lalbagh. (iii) Specific proposals of conversion of existing Central Jail complex, Gopal Mandir complex and Malharashram Higher Secondary School and Lalbagh to commercial use, may kindly be ordered to be quashed. (iv) Circular No. F/6-52/vii/Nazu1/99 dated 30th March, 1999, through which the sovereign powers of State Government are transferred to District Planning Committees, may kindly be ordered to be quashed. (v) A direction may be issued to the State Government that it should evolve suitable machinery to ensure that the provisions of Town and Country Planning Act (T & CP) are properly observed and suitable curative and punitive action is taken under section 35 & 36 of the Act, irrespective of the fact whether the defaulter is a Government agency or an individual citizen. (vi) The State Government in Public Health and Family Planning Department may kindly be directed to take over the vacant premises of former Hukumchand Polyclinic and adjacent area of MTH compound on which the impugned construction of commercial building is in progress, and take necessary action to restore the area to its former use and to use according to Master Plan, as far as possible. Perusal of petition would indicate that the main grievance of these petitioners is against the action taken by the respondents in respect of what is called "Re-densification Scheme" evolved for Indore City. Perusal of petition would indicate that the main grievance of these petitioners is against the action taken by the respondents in respect of what is called "Re-densification Scheme" evolved for Indore City. According to petitioners, it is inter alia, in violation of Master Plan. It is this issue which is detailed in the petition with reference to the provisions of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and the requirement of Master Plan. The petitioner have also made attempt to point out certain specific breaches by showing some constructions undertaken by the parties which according to petitioners should not be allowed being in violation of the requirement of the Act/Rules and Plan. This, in substance, is the gist of petition seeking aforementioned reliefs not for the petitioners in persona but essentially for the residents of Indore as a whole. On notice being issued to the respondents, the State has not made any attempt to contest the locus of these petitioners who are respectable personalities of Indore having a good past record to their credit in their respective field. According to State, a policy decision is taken to constitute a committee for examining the suggestions/objections raised by the public at large in this regard. According to State, this committee so constituted shall not only examine the suggestion in respect of one city but also for several other cities. It is also stated, that pursuant to this decision, the State has constituted the committee by order dated 6.10.2004. A copy of this order is placed on record. It does appear that the object of this committee is to examine the objections/suggestions made/offered by any citizen/resident of the area in question and then to examine as to whether such objections/suggestions are capable of acceptance in toto or not and if so, whether any amendment is needed in the light of such objection/suggestion? In our opinion, in the-first instance, it is not for the Court to probe into the worth of objections/suggestions raised by the petitioners by means of this petition but it is for the committee so constituted by the State to examine the objections and make necessary amendments, if required. Even otherwise, it is essentially the job of experts in the field to go into these questions and then take a decision. Even otherwise, it is essentially the job of experts in the field to go into these questions and then take a decision. We, therefore, do not wish to examine the correctness of the objections raised by the petitioners in this petition and direct the State authorities (respondents No.1 to 4) to place the objections raised by the petitioners in this petition in respect of the redensification of various portions of the central area of Indore before the Committee appointed for Indore city. Let this be done within one month as an outer limit. It is also directed that Committee 'shall examine the objections/suggestions strictly in accordance with the requirement contained in Act/Rules which govern the case expeditiously. Needless to observe, the only objective of Committee while deciding the objections/suggestions would be the public interest as envisaged in the Act and the Rules and sincere endeavour shall be made by the committee to keep themselves away from any extraneous considerations dehors the subject. So far as disputed constructions, which according to petitioners are being undertaken by private individuals, are concerned, it is made clear that they all shall be subject to eventual outcome of the objections; once decided. Necessary remedial steps can always be taken in relation to the disputed construction by the State authorities pending objections as also after their disposal in accordance with law and depending upon the nature of construction, etc. of every construction. Needless to observe, the Committee as also the State officials will keep this factor also in mind in the larger public interest while dealing with this case, so that State larges are not all owed to be compromised for any extraneous consideration for the benefit of any individual as against the public exchequer. In view of aforesaid directions/observations made by us, we find no merit in the submissions raised by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8 which were essentially in the nature of maintainability of the writ petitions, belated action on the part of the petitioners, etc. It is with these directions, this petition is finally disposed of. The State counsel is directed to forward the copy of this order to concerned State authorities to ensure its compliance.