JUDGMENT : 1. Leave granted. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of a public interest litigation was filed by the appellant herein against the State of Uttaranchal and the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, inter alia, on the ground that valuable orchards belonging to the State had been leased for a period of 25 years in favour of private parties without holding auctions therefor. The High Court upon consideration of a chart produced before it as regards the details of profit and loss accounts in respect of the said orchards in the last three years prior to the filing of the said writ petition, dismissed [Suhrid Sudarshan Shah v. State, WP (M/B) No. 600 of 2003, order dated 30-8-2003 (Utt)] the writ petition in limine. 2. Notice having been served upon the respondents, a counter-affidavit has been filed before us, wherein inter alia it was contended: (1) That a total area of 1380.254 ha comprised in 104 government orchards have been demised, the estimated value whereof would be about Rs 138 crores. (2) The State of Uttaranchal has allegedly taken a purported policy decision in terms whereof public private partnership was sought to be resorted to with a view to attract more investment and provide new avenues of employment for local people and for betterment of the economic condition of the public in general and the Government. (3) With the private investment coming in these orchards the benefit thereof would also pass to the local people. Moreover, other horticultural activities like medicinal and herbal plants, tea, sericulture and other high value land based operations are proposed to be taken upon these lands/orchards in future. It is, therefore, not in dispute that the orchards in question would be used only for horticultural purposes and the same can be used for different purposes as stated in the counter-affidavit. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the matter requires consideration afresh at the hands of the High Court. It is, therefore, not in dispute that the orchards in question would be used only for horticultural purposes and the same can be used for different purposes as stated in the counter-affidavit. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the matter requires consideration afresh at the hands of the High Court. Having regard to the decision of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 ], the High Court would inter alia consider the question as to whether on the admissions made by the State, the purported policy to lease out such valuable lands on nomination basis was in public interest or not. We would have ourselves decided the matter one way or the other but we find that the nominees of the State of Uttaranchal are not before us. If the nominations are complete and the same have been acted upon, in our opinion, the nominees should also be heard in the writ petition. 4. Mr. M.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that they would be impleaded in the writ petition before the High Court. The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that counter-affidavit shall be filed before the High Court within two weeks. Liberty is granted to the appellant herein to file appropriate application before the High Court for passing interim orders. 5. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for consideration thereof afresh in accordance with law. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we would request the High Court to consider the desirability of disposing of the writ petition on merit as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned observations and directions.