Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 669 (MP)

Rajesh Sharma v. State of M. P.

2006-05-09

A.P.SHRIVASTAVA, SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2006
ORDER Samvatsar, J. -- 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner in Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality or legitimacy of the grant of lease of 15 acres of land owned by the State Government in favour of respondent No.3. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed this petition alleging that he is the District Secretary of Communist Party of India and has an active record of public service in the District Gwalior. At Gwalior nearly 104 acres of open land is ear-marked for the purpose of Mela. It is alleged that the said Mela is arranged every year for last more than 100 years. A part of the land is used as cattle Mela. The Mela is usually held in the month of December and January of every year. 3. Out of 104 acres of land, the Government has decided to establish an amusement park in the 15 acres of the land. It was decided on 28.2.2002 by the State Government vide Annexure R-l that a large portion of earmarked land for Mela, i.e., out of 104 acres of land is lying unused, therefore, a decision was taken on 28.2.2002 to establish an amusement park, water park and family recreation centre on 15 acres of land which was never used. 4. The land was under the control of Commerce and Industrial Department of the State. It was decided that 15 acres of the aforesaid land should be allotted for the said purpose for 15 years. The land should be allotted on the same terms and conditions, on which land is allotted by the State Government for industrial purpose .and the same condition should be applicable. It was also decided that the procedure for allotment should be transparent and for that purpose the respondent No.2 invited tenders for the said purpose. The respondent No.3 submitted the tender which was accepted by the respondent No.2 and the land was allotted to him. The respondent No.3 established amusement park on the said land. This petition is filed challenging the said action .... land should be allotted after inviting tenders. 5. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondents No.1 and 2 allotted the said land to respondent No.3 by collusion. It is alleged ' that the land is valuable land. The respondent No.3 established amusement park on the said land. This petition is filed challenging the said action .... land should be allotted after inviting tenders. 5. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondents No.1 and 2 allotted the said land to respondent No.3 by collusion. It is alleged ' that the land is valuable land. In para 5.5 of the petition, the petitioner had made a statement that market value of the' land is Rs. two crores and the same is allotted to respondent No.3 on sum of Rs.60,095/- as security deposit and annual premium @ Rs.20,032/-. Thus, the said land was allotted to respondent No.3 at throwaway price. 6. The second contention raised by the petitioner in para 5.7 is that 80 pakka shops are constructed by respondent No.3 and they are sublet to private individuals and this activity of the respondent No.3 is manifest contravention of the, terms of the lease and still respondents No.1 and 2 in active connivance with respondent No.3 are not taking any action. 7. It is further alleged that respondent No.3 on his own developed a wide road connecting the land to the main road running between railway station and Gola-ka-Mandir. Thus, he has encroached upon nearly 2.50 acres of land. It is also alleged in the petition that respondents have violated the terms of the agreement by constructing pakka shops subletting to the individual and raising unauthorized construction on the said land. Hence, the respondents No.1 and 2 be directed to reconsider for grant of lease or directed to exercise their rights to re-entry in light of aforesaid allegations. 8. The respondent No.1 has filed its return on 28.1.2005. In the return the State Government has justified allotment of land in favour of respondent No.3. In para 5.4 of the return, the State Government has denied the allegations about the collusion with respondent No.3. It is alleged in the return that a proposal was received in respect of establishment of an amusement park from the Gwalior Trade Fair Authority, Gwalior Le., respondent No.2. In para 5.4 of the return, the State Government has denied the allegations about the collusion with respondent No.3. It is alleged in the return that a proposal was received in respect of establishment of an amusement park from the Gwalior Trade Fair Authority, Gwalior Le., respondent No.2. The State Government examined the proposal and after 'taking into consideration and all the relevant facts relevant for giving permission for establishment of such amusement park, water park, and family recreation centre has decided vide order dated 28.2.2002 to permit respondent No.2 to allot the said land for a period of 15 years., The permission was granted subject to the condition that the land .should be allotted on 'the same terms and conditions on which land is allotted to the .Industries Units Revenue collected pursuant to such allotment should be ,used in the development of am-unities of Mela Pradhikaran. It was also decided that transparent procedure should be adopted before allotment of the land. The rate of the lease, rent, security and premium should be fixed on the same basis on which the land is allotted to middle scale industries. A copy of the said order is marked as Annexure R -1. 9. Pursuant to such permission, Mela Pradhikaran was entrusted with the work of lease-deed being executed therefore, a notification was issued by Law Department notifying that 15 acres of land is permitted to be leased out by Gwalior Trade Fair Authority, Gwalior through its Secretary and thus respondent No.2 was authorised to allot 15 acres of land out of 104 acres ear-marked for Mela purposes. A proforma agreement of the lease-deed as provided by the Industrial Department was also forwarded by the respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 along with forwarding letter dated 31.3.2003 (Annexure R-3). Thereafter, Mela Pradhikaran i.e. respondent No.2 invited tenders for publishing advertisement in number of newspapers and allotted the land to respondent No.3. In para 5.5 of the return, it is averred that the Industrial Department for allotting the land to middle scale industries has worked out the rate of premium and security deposit and on the basis of the same Rs.20,03,200/- has been fixed as premium Rs.60,096/- as security deposit and Rs.20,032/- as annual lease rent. Thus, the State Government has denied the allegations made in the petition that land was allotted to respondent No.3 at throwaway price. 10. Thus, the State Government has denied the allegations made in the petition that land was allotted to respondent No.3 at throwaway price. 10. On the other hand, it is stated that apart from the annual lease rent and security cost, a premium of Rs.20,03,200/- was charged from respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 in para 5.6 has specifically denied the fact that a valuable land was transferred to respondent No.3 at throwaway price. It is also denied that there is revenue loss to the Government in the said transaction. In para 5.7, the State Government has denied the allegations that respondent No.3 has constructed 80 pakka shops and sublet it to the individuals. The State Government in para 5.7 has specifically stated that as per terms and conditions of the lease-deed no subletting is found and even if it is found that respondent No.3 has constructed 80 pakka shops and sublet it to private individuals, then respondent No.2 is empowered to take action against respondent No.3 for violating the terms and conditions of the lease. It is also mentioned that respondent No.2 has already issued notice dated 22.9.2004 to respondent No.3 on the said allegations made in the petition. 11. As regards encroachment is concerned, it is stated by respondent No.1 that these allegations are brought to the notice of respondent No.2 and in case any violation is found, then respondent No.2 is competent to take action for violation of the terms and conditions of the lease and respondent No.2 is empowered even to cancel the lease-deed. Thus, the respondent No.1 has submitted that the land was not allotted to respondent No.3 at throwaway price. 12. As regards allegations of encroachment and constructions of pakka shops are concerned, the respondent has stated that in case any such violation is found, then respondent No.2 is empowered to take action against. In para 5.10 of the return, the Stagte Government has specifically stated that there is no violation of any rules viz. M.P. Udyog (Shed, Plot and Allotment of Land) Rules, 1974. It is also alleged that said allegations are without any basis. Thus, as per respondent No.1, there is no violation of rules in allotment of land in favour of respondent No.3. 13. The respondent No.2 has filed its return contending that the land in question is ear-marked for Gwalior Mela is Government land. It is also alleged that said allegations are without any basis. Thus, as per respondent No.1, there is no violation of rules in allotment of land in favour of respondent No.3. 13. The respondent No.2 has filed its return contending that the land in question is ear-marked for Gwalior Mela is Government land. The land is owned by Department of Commerce and Industries and entrusted by the Government to the respondent No.2 for managing and organizing the Gwalior Mela. It is also stated by the respondent No.2 that the allegations made by the petitioner in para 5.4 of the petition are misconceived. It is alleged that Mela land is regularly used for Mela activities and 15 acres of land, which is allotted to respondent No.3 was unused for Mela purposes. Considering this fact, the Government has taken a decision to lease out the same land for establishing an amusement park, water park and family recreation centre. Accordingly, the State Government has authorised the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 28.2.2002 to allot the said land to respondent No.3 and also to execute the lease agreement. The respondent No.2 further alleged that as per the directions of the State Government and with a view to maintain transparency, respondent No.2 invited tenders by publication of notice in eight different newspapers having all India circulars. 14. The respondent No.3 in pursuance of the said advertisement submitted his tender and tender of respondent No.3 was accepted on the condition that he has to deposit Rs.20,03,200/- towards premium of annual lease rent. In addition to this amount, respondent No.3 is also required to deposit Rs.11,00,000/- as one time unfront bid amount. He was further required to deposit Rs.14,00,000/- as annual minimum guaranteed amount with 5% increase every year. He was required to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- in lumpsum for a period starting from September, 2003 to August, 2004 as moratorium period of one year. Accordingly, the petitioner has deposited Rs.31,32,000/- in cash and he has also required to pay an amount of Rs.14,20,032/-every year in annual minimum guaranteed with 5% increase every year. It is further stated that the land is given for 15 years only that too after getting amount of Rs.31,32,000/-. In addition to which, the respondent has deposited Rs.14,00,000/- as annual minimum guaranteed amount and Rs.20,032/- as annual rent subject to enhancement of 5% every year. It is further stated that the land is given for 15 years only that too after getting amount of Rs.31,32,000/-. In addition to which, the respondent has deposited Rs.14,00,000/- as annual minimum guaranteed amount and Rs.20,032/- as annual rent subject to enhancement of 5% every year. Thus, the allegations of the petitioner that land in question was allotted at throwaway price are denied and actually respondent No.2 started huge recovery from the land which was lying unused. 15. In para 5.7, it is alleged that respondent No.3 has not executed the contract of agreement, however, it is admitted that he has deposited an amount payable by him till today under the agreement. In para 5.7, it is mentioned that respondent No.2 has issued notice to respondent No.3 for violation of certain conditions of the lease agreement and thus denied that respondent No.2 is not performing his legal duties in the matter. 16. The respondent No.3 has filed its return on 23.7.2005 raising number of preliminary objections as well as denying the allegations made in the petition. It is contended that respondent No.3 was a successful tendered and therefore the land was allotted to respondent No.3 by respondent No.2. It is further stated that respondent No.3 has paid an amount of Rs.36,83,328/- in pursuance of letter dated 5.9.2003 issued by respondent No.2 and apart from that respondent No.3 has furnished a bank gurantee to the tune of Rs.42 lacs towards minimum guaranteed amount for future three years. An amount of Rs.36,83,328/- is paid by cheque No.044734 dated 6.9.2003 issued by State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.42lacs is also furnished by the same bank. Thus, the allegations of the petitioner that the land was transferred to respondent No.3 at throwaway price was denied. 17. As regard construction of 80 pakka shops are concerned, these allegations are denied. However, the respondent No.2 has stated that in the tender notice itself it is provided that 80% of the land should be utilized for Amusement Park/Water Park/Family Recreation Centre and 20% of the area can be utilized for commercial facilities, which are directly related and supportive for the above purpose. However, the respondent No.2 has stated that in the tender notice itself it is provided that 80% of the land should be utilized for Amusement Park/Water Park/Family Recreation Centre and 20% of the area can be utilized for commercial facilities, which are directly related and supportive for the above purpose. Thus, as per said condition, the respondent No.3 has constructed family recreation centre having activities ancillary to the concept of amusement and entertainment such as bowling alley, video game~, pool tables, Billiard, food plazas, souvenir shops, handicraft promotion shops, restaurants etc. out of 20% of the area permissible for commercial purposes. For construction of this premises, no objection was issued by respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 himself has forwarded the plan for approval to concerned authorities for giving their approval to the proposal vide letter dated 28.10.2003 and 11.11.2003 (Annexure R-3/III to IV) respectively. Thus, respondent No.2 has not raised any objection for the said construction. The plan was approved by the Joint Director of Town and Country Planning, Gwalior on 5.12.2003. Thus, the allegations of constructing 80 pakka shops and subletting it to individuals are denied by respondent No.3. 18. As regards allegations of encroachment is concerned, as per the petitioner, respondent No.3 has encroached 2.5 acres of land. These allegations are denied by respondent No.3. It is alleged that a road is developed by respondent No.2 as approach road to the land allotted to respondent No.3 as per letter Annexure R-3N written by respondent No.2 to the Collector, Gwalior. It has further stated by respondent No.3 that he has merely levelled the road, as the same was not done by respondent No.2 in stead of repeated requests and the levelling was done by respondent No.3 at his own cost without seeking any quid-pro-quo. The respondent No.3 does not claim any control over the said land. These allegations of encroachment are also denied by respondent No.3. 19. This Court by order dated 25.7.2005 had directed the respondents No.1 and 2 to inspect the land in question in presence of the petitioner or petitioner's counsel and respondent No.3 or his representative and submit a report whether any of the conditions of the lease are violated. These allegations of encroachment are also denied by respondent No.3. 19. This Court by order dated 25.7.2005 had directed the respondents No.1 and 2 to inspect the land in question in presence of the petitioner or petitioner's counsel and respondent No.3 or his representative and submit a report whether any of the conditions of the lease are violated. This Court had also directed the State to explain whether the rules known as 'Madhya I Pradesh Udyog (Shed, Plot and Bhumi Aabantan) Rules, 1974 are applicable to the present lease and if said rules are applicable State shall intimate whether before passing the order of allotment of land on lease said rules of the year 1974 have been followed. Pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 25.7.2005, a compliance report was filed on 19.9.2005 by respondent No.1, which is accompanied by spot inspection report. As per said report, inspection was done on 6.9.2005 in presence of all the parties and their representatives. As per said report, a partial violation of condition No.3 and 10 was found. It is observed in the report that plan was sanctioned by the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Gwalior on the basis of letter dated 11.11.2003 addressed 'by respondent No.2. The plan was sanctioned by Department of Town and Country Planning, Gwalior on 5.12.2003. It was found that instead of four ticket booths, five ticket booths were constructed. A meter room having 127.22 square metres was constructed instead of 19.50 x 6.55. A tube-well was also dug on the spot. The remaining construction was made in accordance with plan sanctioned by the Department of Town and Country Planning, Gwalior. 20. As regards subletting is concerned, as per the compliance report no evidence about subletting was found at the time of inspection. 21. As regards encroachment is concerned, it was found that a road was constructed on 2.44 acres and a fencing wire on the side of road was made. It was found at the time of enquiry that the said road was constructed as per the plan sanctioned by the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Gwalior, but there was no approval for fencing. It is stated that the fencing wires are removed, thus there will be no encroachment. It was found at the time of enquiry that the said road was constructed as per the plan sanctioned by the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Gwalior, but there was no approval for fencing. It is stated that the fencing wires are removed, thus there will be no encroachment. It is also stated in the report of the State Government the land in question was allotted to respondent No.3 as per provisions of M.P. Udyog (Shed, Plot and Allotment of Land) Rules, 1974. These rules are applicable and fully complied with before allotment was done. 22. Thus, from the said compliance report, it is dear that State has examined the applicability of the allotment rules and found that the land was allotted to the respondent No.3 as per rules. At the time of inspection, no evidence of subletting was found. As regards encroachment is concerned, the only encroachment found by the respondent No.1 was the wire fencing, which was erected by side of the road. There was one additional ticket booth, a meter room and tube-well. The road which was constructed was found to be in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Gwalior. The report nowhere says that the road was constructed by encroaching upon the Government land. 23. The respondent No.3 has filed objection of the said report stating that a meter room was constructed by him temporary structure to protect electric meter. It is necessary to cover a meter room as per the rules of MPSEB. Moreover, the meter room was erected for safety of children and other visitors coming to the park and preventing the electric meter from exposure in rainy season and other seasons. Hence, there is no violation in erecting a meter room. It is further stated that as the objection was raised at the time of inspection, the said meter room, ticket booth and wire fencing is now removed. 24. As regards tube-well is concerned, it is stated that respondent No.3 had applied for permission before digging tube-well and though no written order was passed, he was given an oral permission for digging tube-well by the authority. Tube-well is necessary for developing a water park, as without water, water park cannot be developed. As there is no other source of water supply in the neighboring area, therefore digging a tube-well is genuine and legitimate. 25. Tube-well is necessary for developing a water park, as without water, water park cannot be developed. As there is no other source of water supply in the neighboring area, therefore digging a tube-well is genuine and legitimate. 25. As regards construction of fourth ticket counter is concerned, it is stated that said counter was constructed temporary for the public convenience. The respondent No.3 is not getting any additional income or benefit from the said counter. However, to avoid any controversy, the said ticket room is also removed. 26. As regards fencing wire is concerned, he has erected fencing wire on the side of road. This was done for protecting the public from animals and protecting encroachment by private persons on the road constructed by respondent No.2. This fencing wire is also removed after spot inspection. 27. The respondent No.2 has also filed a return dated 27.11.2005, in which it is stated that as there was partial violation of some of the conditions, they have issued notice to respondent No.3 for violation of terms and conditions. After providing an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/and thus they have taken appropriate action against the respondent No.3. 28. Thus from the pleadings of the parties and from the documents, the following fact emerges: 29. That the Government land having an area 104 acres is situated at Gwalior. This land is ear-marked for" 'Mela' purposes. 'Mela' is held once a year for a month i.e. in the month of December-January. The rest of the time, the land remains unused. As per pleadings of the parties particularly respondents No.1 and 2,15 acres of land was not utilized for 'Mela' purposes, and therefore, the Government has taken a decision to construct an amusement park, water park and family recreation centre on 28.2.2002. It was agreed that land should be allotted for 15 years on the same principles, applicable to middle scale industries. The respondent No.2 was authorised to allot the land after maintaining transparency. The respondent No.2 invited tenders by publishing notices in newspapers having wide publication through all India including Economy, Political Factor, Business Times etc. The respondent No.3 submitted his tender pursuant to said advertisement. On his tender being highest, the land was allotted to him after accepting a cheque ofRs.36,83,328/- a bank guarantee ofRs.41Iacs. The respondent No.2 invited tenders by publishing notices in newspapers having wide publication through all India including Economy, Political Factor, Business Times etc. The respondent No.3 submitted his tender pursuant to said advertisement. On his tender being highest, the land was allotted to him after accepting a cheque ofRs.36,83,328/- a bank guarantee ofRs.41Iacs. He was further required to pay annual rent and Rs.14,20,032/as annual minimum guarantee with 5% increase every year. The allegations made by the petitioner in the petition that the land was given to respondent No.3 on meagre payment of Rs.60,096/- as security amount and Rs.20,032/ - as annual lease rent cannot be said to be correct, and therefore, it can be safely said that petitioner has not stated correct and complete facts in this petition. 30. As regards subletting is concerned, the allegations of subletting are denied by the respondents. At the time of spot inspection also no subletting was found. 31. As regards encroachment is concerned, the only encroachment, which was found was wire fencing erected by respondent No.3. Some other violation like installation of fifth ticket counter and temporary construction of a meter room were found, which were subsequently removed. The respondent No.2 has issued notice for alleged violation and after hearing imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- on respondent No.2. 32. As regards construction of shops are concerned, there is a condition in the tender notice itself for utilization of 20% of the land for commercial facilities like food plazas, souvenir shops, handicraft promotion shops, restaurants etc. There are no allegations in the petition for exceeding the limit of 20% of the land. The petitioner has stated that 2.5 acres of land is encroached by the respondent No.3 for construction of the shops. As per tender notice itself, an approach road w~ to be provided by the respondent No.2. As per case of respondent No.2, the respondent No.3 has constructed an approach road and he has merely levelled the said road at his own cost without claiming any return. 33. The respondent No.1 at the time of inspection has also found no encroachment by respondent No.3 on the said land. The respondent No.1 merely found the fencing wire, which was erected at the side of road. The respondent No.2 has issued notice for the aforesaid violation and imposed fine of Rs.25,000/- on him. 33. The respondent No.1 at the time of inspection has also found no encroachment by respondent No.3 on the said land. The respondent No.1 merely found the fencing wire, which was erected at the side of road. The respondent No.2 has issued notice for the aforesaid violation and imposed fine of Rs.25,000/- on him. Now the question whether any petition under the garb of public interest is maintainable. 34. Thus, the allegations that the land was transferred to the respondent No.3 on a meagre payment of Rs.60,096/- as security amount and R~.20,032/- as annual lease rent cannot be said to be correct. The respondents No.1 and 2, on the other- hand, started getting huge amount from the unused land. 35. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 very vehemently urged that present petition is not maintainable in view of the aforesaid facts. He has invited attention of this Court to number of decisions of this Court. The first judgment relied on by him in the case of G.B. Mahajan and others v. Jalgaon Municipal Council and others [ (1991)3 SCC 91 ]. In that case a piece of land had been received by the Town Municipal Council, Jalgaon by way of gift in 1913. In terms of the gift the land had been put to use of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, but with a view to put the land to a better and more profitable use the Municipal Council contemplated a project comprising, inter alia, erection of a commercial complex. This action was challenged in Public Interest Litigation. The apex Court has held that a project otherwise legal, does not become any the less permissible by reason alone that the local authority, instead of executing the project itself, had entered into an agreement with a developer for its financing and execution. The criticism of the project being 'unconventional' does not add to or advance the legal contention any further. The question is not whether it is conventional by the standard of the extant practices, but whether there was something in the law rendering it impermissible. 36. The criticism of the project being 'unconventional' does not add to or advance the legal contention any further. The question is not whether it is conventional by the standard of the extant practices, but whether there was something in the law rendering it impermissible. 36. In the present case as per return filed by the State Government and their compliance report, it is clear that the land was allotted to respondent No.3 as per allotment rules applicable to land for industrial purposes and learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision in the Gwalior Vyapar Mela Pradhikaran Adhiniyarn, 1996 or any other provision, which prohibits allotment of land for amusement park. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the allotment of land to respondent No.3 is in violation of any rules or law. 37. As regards scope of judicial review is concerned, in para 46 of the judgment the apex Court has held that it is true that principles of judicial review apply to the exercise by a Government body of its contractual powers, the inherent limitations on the scope of the enquiry are themselves a part of those principles. For instance, in a matter even as between the parties, there must be shown as public law element to the contractual decision before judicial review is invoked and material placed before the Court falls far short of what the law requires to justify interference. 38. The another judgment relied on by learned counsel for respondent No.3 is in the case of BALCD Employees' Union v. Union of India [2002( 1) BLJ 110= (2002)2 SCC 333 ]. In that case the apex Court has held that Court cannot examine the merit of different economic policy and cannot struck down a policy merely on the ground that other policies would have been fairer and better. The Government policy regarding disinvestment in public sector company cannot be examined by the Court in Public Interest Litigation. The apex Court has also considered scope of PIL in the aforesaid case and held that Public Interest Litigation as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It will not be incorrect to say that it is primarily the Judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. The apex Court has also considered scope of PIL in the aforesaid case and held that Public Interest Litigation as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It will not be incorrect to say that it is primarily the Judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. At that stage, it was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversarial in nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative effort of the parties. While PIL initially was invoked mostly in cases connected with the relief to the people and the weaker sections of the society and in areas where there was violation of human rights under Article 21, but with the passage of time, petitions have been entertained in other spheres and in the recent years, Public Interest Litigation is now tending to become publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation and has a tendency to be counterproductive. The Court must take care to see that it does not overstep the limits of its judicial function and trespass into areas which are reserved to the executive and the legislature by the Constitution. If the Government has taken policy decision after considering the entire aspect, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in public interest to require the Court to go into and investigate those areas which are the function of the executive. 39. Next judgment cited by learned counsel for respondent No.3 is in the case of Chairman and MD BPL Ltd. v. S.P. Gururaja and others [ (2003)8 SCC 567 ]. In that case also the apex Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. 39A. Next judgment cited by learned counsel for respondent No.3 is in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. [ (2004)3 SCC 349 ], in that case the apex Court has held that the Court has to be satisfied about the credential of the applicant, the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him, the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved in the petition. The apex Court further held that Public Interest Litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. Thus, as per this judgment, the Court has to be satisfied about the credentials of the applicant, the prima facie correctness or nature of the information given by him. The Court should not entertain the public interest. 40. The same principle is laid down by the apex Court in the case of Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and others [ (2004)3 SCC 363 ], wherein the apex Court has held that PILs should be admitted with great care. 41. After considering the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, we find that present petition is based on incorrect facts and insufficient material. The petition is also belated, as the same is filed on 3.8.2004 challenging the allotment of land in favour of respondent No.3 in the year 2003 i.e., after lapse of nearly one year during which the respondent No.3 must have invested substantial amount. Moreover, the Government while deciding to establish an amusement park has considered all aspects i.e., utilising the land, which was lying idle for long years and due to this decision respondent No.2 getting substantial revenue. In such circumstances, we do not find any merit in the petition and same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition fails and is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable by the petitioner, which may be deposited in utilization for Legal Aid Service.