Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 587 (ALL)

ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2008-03-14

H.L.GOKHALE, VINEET SARAN

body2008
JUDGMENT Hon’ble H.L. Gokhale, C.J.—The petitioner is a resident of NOIDA. He has filed this petition in public interest, containing various prayers, which are principally to challenge the legality and validity of the Taj Expressway Project. It is a project whereunder six lane motorable corridor is to be constructed between GREATER NOIDA and AGRA. 2. We have heard the petitioner, Sri Ashutosh Srivastava in person and Sri Jyotindra Misra, Advocate General with Sri D.K. Arora Additional Advocate General on behalf of Respondent No. 1-State of U.P.; Sri Harish Salve, Senior Advocate, Sri S.P. Gupta, Senior Advocate along with Sri Yashwant Varma, Advocate for Respondent No. 2-J.P.Group of Industries; and Sri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate along with Sri Ajay Bhanot, Advocate for Respondent No. 3-Taj Expressway Authority. We have also perused the record. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with consent of the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents, this petition is taken on board for hearing and final disposal. 3. The petition raises various issues but principally the challenge is to the report of the Commission of Enquiry which was appointed to look into the grievances with respect to the project. It is prayed that after declaring the said enquiry report invalid and illegal, the Respondent No. 1 be directed to initiate de novo judicial enquiry. The prayers in the petition as initially filed are quoted below : "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to produce the alleged report of Commission headed by Justice Sidheshwar Narayan (Retired). (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to initiate de novo judicial enquiry headed by sitting High Court Judge. (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing declaring the alleged enquiry report illegal, invalid and ineffective and not enforceable in the eye of law. (d) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case. (e) Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner in person." 4. (d) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case. (e) Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner in person." 4. Thereafter by way of amendment application filed on 29.11.2007, the petitioner sought to challenge the concession agreement dated 7.2.2003 entered between the Respondent No. 3-Taj Expressway Authority, an authority constituted under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and Respondent No. 2-J.P. Group of Industries and also for a direction for investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation or special investigation team. The prayers sought by the amendment application dated 29.11.2007 are quoted below : "C(i) Issue an order, writ or direction in the nature of mandamus to declare the concession agreement dated 7th February, 2003 entered into between Taj Expressway Industrial Development and Jaiprakash Industries Limited illegal as well as null and void. C(ii) Issue an order, writ or direction in the nature of mandamus to order an investigation by the CBI or special investigation team into the entire deal of Taj Expressway Project between Taj Expressway Industrial Development and Jaiprakash Industries Limited." 5. Before entering into the merits of the case, we shall first proceed to deal with the preliminary objection raised by Sri Jyotindra Misra, learned Advocate General with regard to the locus of the petitioner to file this petition. It has been contended by Sri Misra that the petitioner cannot be said to be a person interested in the awarding of contract to any party and, as such, a writ petition at his behest would not be maintainable. The petitioner is a citizen residing at NOIDA. In our view, he has raised certain important questions with respect to this project, which are in public interest and as such his locus to challenge the same cannot be denied. This petition cannot, thus, be rejected on any such ground. 6. As regards the merits of the case, it is material to note that in view of the grievances raised by the petitioner and some others, a Commission of Enquiry was constituted under the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1956 (for short the Act) and a report of the Enquiry Commission headed by Justice Sidheshwar Narayan, retired Judge of Patna/Calcutta High Courts was submitted on 12.10.2006. 7. 7. The first prayer in the petition, when presented, was to produce the said report of the Enquiry Commission. Along with the counter-affidavit, the State Government has annexed the copy of the report and as such the same has now been provided to the petitioner. The first prayer, therefore, no longer survives. 8. As far as the challenge to the report of the Commission of Enquiry is concerned [prayer (c) of the original petition], it is to be noted that the petitioner himself appeared before the Enquiry Commission, which is not refuted before us by the petitioner. That is so recorded in paragraph 1.2 of the report of the Commission. Paragraph 1.3 records that the petitioner had also filed his affidavit. The minutes of the proceeding dated 29.9.2006 of the Enquiry Commission also go to show that the petitioner personally appeared and filed an affidavit and that he did not have any further submission to make beyond his affidavit. The minutes of the proceeding of the said date are quoted below : "Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, in response to notice (Letter No. T.E.A./54 dt. 19.9.06, personally appeared today before the Commission and there was short deliberation. He was asked about any prayer/relief in furtherance of his affidavit. He did not have any other submission beyond his affidavit." 9. After the filing of the report of the Enquiry Commission, the petitioner has not added any grounds in the writ petition to challenge the same on merits. He thus did not place on record any specific ground or detail as to how the enquiry report was bad or illegal. However, he still prayed that the averments made in the writ petition (which was filed prior to the petitioner having any copy of the report of Enquiry Commission) be taken as grounds in support of prayer (c) for quashing the enquiry report. For that purpose, principally three submissions are raised— firstly that the award of the contract to the respondent No. 2-company is activated by mala fides; secondly, that the tender process itself was faulty; and thirdly, that the terms of contract are unconscionable and against public interest. 10. To substantiate the allegations of mala fides, the petitioner has merely contended that the father of one Sri Anoop Misra, the then Principal Secretary, Industrial Development, Government of U.P. was associated with the respondent No. 2-company as its Director. 10. To substantiate the allegations of mala fides, the petitioner has merely contended that the father of one Sri Anoop Misra, the then Principal Secretary, Industrial Development, Government of U.P. was associated with the respondent No. 2-company as its Director. Besides this, there were also allegations against one Sri Manoj Gaur. The report of the Enquiry Commission shows that notice under Section 8-B of the Act were issued to Sri Anoop Misra as well as Sri Manoj Gaur and others. The Commission has recorded the statement of Sri Anoop Misra, and in paragraph 9.1(f) his statement as recorded is that "the name of his father is Gauri Kant Misra and he was never Director of J.P. Industries ................". In the counter-affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2 also it has been categorically denied that the father of Sri Anoop Misra was ever Director in their company. The petitioner did not produce any document to show that the father of Sri Anoop Misra was ever associated with the respondent No. 2 by being its Director or otherwise. In such circumstances, the Commission of Enquiry could have no basis to hold that the father of Sri Anoop Misra was ever associated with or was Director of the respondent No. 2-company. 11. Paragraph 2.1 of the report, amongst others, records the point on which the Commission was to enquire and the point No. 3 is to ascertain the facts and position of the transparency into the procedure and action taken in the project. With regard to any favours having been done to the respondent No. 2, amongst others, the Commission has recorded as follows in paragraph 10.17 : "The recommendation of the TEC was scrutinized and duly examined in the Government with the involvement of Finance and Law Departments and, thereupon, it was found to be in order. The matter was placed before the Arthik Vikas Samiti of the Cabinet which approved the award of the Project to M/s JIL." The Commission further recorded in paragraph 10.18 as follows : "At the level of the State Government also, there was a good deal of exercise before granting the approval. Materials to that effect were called for and examined by this Commission. Those were very emphatically asserted in the written submissions and also in the affidavit, filed on behalf of the State Government, while making reference to the then correspondence. Materials to that effect were called for and examined by this Commission. Those were very emphatically asserted in the written submissions and also in the affidavit, filed on behalf of the State Government, while making reference to the then correspondence. This Commission has no reason to disbelieve those submissions, which have been now made by a different set of Government officials in context of various allegations and questions raised so far." 12. The Commission has, therefore, come to the conclusion that the agreement with Respondent No. 2 was arrived at after proper scrutiny on the part of the Government officers and that there was no mala fide on the alleged connection of Sri Anoop Misra or his father with J.P. Group of Industries. Such conclusion was arrived at after issuing notice to all the concerned persons under Section 8-B of the Act, in which proceedings the petitioner had also participated. We have gone through the report of the Enquiry Commission and we have no reason to come to any such conclusion that the report is in any way illegal or invalid. It has been said time and again that it is very easy to allege mala fide but very difficult to establish the same. In the present case, in the absence of any material whatsoever, the contract cannot be vitiated only on this ground. 13. Further, the petitioner has not been able to place any material on record to show that the process itself was faulty or that the terms of the contract were unconscionable and against public interest. The Commission of Enquiry has gone into all the questions which are now being raised before us. The said Enquiry Commission was presided by a retired High Court Judge. We have not been pointed out any infirmity, either in the procedure or in the findings rendered by the Commission of Enquiry. 14. In such view of the matter, we neither find any ground for holding the enquiry bad or illegal, nor can the tender process be held to be faulty or terms of contract held to be against public interest. Accordingly, prayer (c) for holding the enquiry report illegal, invalid or ineffective and non-enforceable in the eyes of law does not deserve to be granted. Accordingly, prayer (c) for holding the enquiry report illegal, invalid or ineffective and non-enforceable in the eyes of law does not deserve to be granted. In view of prayer (c) of the original petition having been disallowed, we do not find any reason for granting prayer (b), which is for a direction to the State to initiate de novo judicial enquiry. 15. Now we come to the amendment which has been sought by the petitioner vide application dated 29.11.2007. The same has been vehemently opposed by the respondents. The objection raised is that since the main prayers made in the writ petition are not liable to be granted, the amendment application ought to be rejected. Besides, the petitioner is widening the scope of the writ petition; and but for that, if the agreement entered into in the year 2003 is now challenged by a fresh petition, the petition would be barred by laches. It has thus been urged that the challenge by way of such amendment, is primarily to the agreement dated 7.2.2003, which was entered into nearly five years back, and should not be looked into at this stage. 16. It is true that the amendment is belated. At the same time, considering that the petitioner is a party in person and has requested for transparency in Government decision, in our view, the amendment cannot be rejected or thrown away at the threshold. It would be the duty of the Court to examine the same and look into the merits of the case in its totality. 17. The application for amendment is accordingly allowed. The two prayers sought to be added are to be treated as part of the petition. 18. The prayers made in the amendment application have already been quoted above. Prayer C(ii) is virtually a repetition and overlap with prayers (b) and (c) of the main petition. Once we have already held that the report of the Enquiry Commission cannot be held as bad or illegal, no such direction as made in prayer C(ii) for investigation into the entire deal of Taj Expressway Project by Central Bureau of Investigation or special investigation team, deserves to be issued by this Court. 19. Once we have already held that the report of the Enquiry Commission cannot be held as bad or illegal, no such direction as made in prayer C(ii) for investigation into the entire deal of Taj Expressway Project by Central Bureau of Investigation or special investigation team, deserves to be issued by this Court. 19. Now turning to the prayer C(i) sought to be made by the amendment application which seeks to declare the concession agreement dated 7.2.2003 as null and void, the challenge is in three folds—firstly, on the ground of mala fide; secondly, on the ground that the procedure followed is faulty; and thirdly, that the concession granted to the respondent No. 2 are unjustified and unconscionable and that the benefit of Government land and stamp duty concessions are being arbitrarily extended to the respondent No. 2. 20. As far as the allegations of mala fide are concerned, they are two folds— one on the ground of alleged relationship of the father of Sri Anoop Misra with J.P. Group of Industries, which, as we have held above, the petitioner has not been able to establish. The second ground is that there are certain allegations against few political personalities. It has been submitted that this project is for certain other considerations to the benefit of the present Chief Minister Sushree Mayawati. She was also the Chief Minister when the agreement was entered into in February, 2003 and after some gap, presently also she is the Chief Minister. As against this Sri Harish Salve, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2, pointed out that the project was initiated in the year 2001 when Sri Raj Nath Singh was the Chief Minister and thereafter Sushree Mayawati became the Chief Minister and continued till August, 2003. Then for a substantial period Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav was the Chief Minister till May, 2007 whereafter Sushree Mayawati has again become the Chief Minister. We can see the merit in the submission of Sri Salve that the Government has changed during these periods from time to time. No material has been produced by the petitioner to establish that the present Chief Minister has taken interest in the project for some extraneous consideration. In such circumstances, in the present case, in the absence of any material whatsoever, the contract cannot be vitiated on this ground. 21. No material has been produced by the petitioner to establish that the present Chief Minister has taken interest in the project for some extraneous consideration. In such circumstances, in the present case, in the absence of any material whatsoever, the contract cannot be vitiated on this ground. 21. With regard to the second issue regarding procedural fault in the awarding of contract, the petitioner has submitted that only two parties participated in the selection procedure and that the participant other than the Respondent No. 2 was some sort of sister concern of the respondent No. 2 itself. He has also submitted that advertisement was given only in the newspapers in Delhi and that global tenders were not invited. On the other hand, Sri Salve pointed out that some 19 parties participated in the initial process and thereafter, ultimately only two parties, i.e. the respondent No. 2 and D.S. Constructions Limited, remained in the fray. In our view, if only two parties, out of 19, remained in the fray and one was selected, that itself cannot be a ground to vitiate the awarding of the contract. In this regard our attention has been drawn to the relevant material which was annexed to the counter-affidavit of Respondent No. 2, which we have perused. As regards the respondents not having issued global tenders, nothing was brought on record to show that for awarding of a contract of such nature, it was necessary to issue any global tenders. It is not denied that advertisements were issued in national dailies and in response thereto there were 19 applicants. In view thereof, it is not possible for us to say that there had been any procedural infirmity in the contract for the project being awarded to the respondent No. 2. 22. Coming to the third submission of the petitioner in this regard, which refers to the concession granted to the respondent No. 2 by the State Government, the submission of the petitioner is two fold—firstly, that huge chunks of land have been given to the respondent No. 2 on lease for 90 years, at a very nominal lease rent; and secondly, that an exemption of stamp duty has been given to the respondent No. 2, thus causing loss of revenue to the State exchequer. 23. To understand these allegations we have to first note the nature of the project which was to be undertaken. 23. To understand these allegations we have to first note the nature of the project which was to be undertaken. The bid document inviting offers was issued by respondent No. 3, setting up the terms and conditions on which the contract was to be awarded. Paragraph 1.1 relating to introduction of the project concept, gives the purpose of the project. The same is quoted below : "The absence of a major highway on the eastern side of Yamuna in U.P. is resulting in longer travel time as well as inconvenience to road users. Considering this, U.P. Government is contemplating to provide an access-controlled expressway connecting New Delhi with Mathura and further Agra. The objectives of the proposed expressway are as follows : (i) Provide a fast moving corridor to minimize the travel time; (ii) To connect the main townships/commercial centres on the eastern side of Yamuna; (iii) To relieve NH-2 which is already congested and runs through the heart of cities like Faridabad, Ballabgarh and Palwal." 24. This is a project of building a six-lane motorable road from Greater NOIDA to Agra, which is to run over 160 kms. The highway between NOIDA Toll Bridge to Greater NOIDA has already been constructed by the State Government, which is of about 25 kms. The project was offered as a Joint Venture (JV) in which case a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) Company was to be floated. Alternatively the bidder could take the project exclusively and the terms of the same are laid down in paragraph 1.8 of the bid document which is as follows : "This project is offered on Joint Venture basis with 25% equity to TEA and 75% equity to the JV Partner, who would be responsible for the development, execution and operation of the Project. In this case, the cost of Expressway being commissioned between NOIDA and GREATER NOIDA shall be treated as equity contribution of TEA in the JV/SPV and if the cost of NOIDA-GREATER NOIDA Expressway is in excess of 25% equity, the surplus amount shall be treated as interest-free loan to the JV/SPV. Alternatively, at the option of the bidder the project may be taken up by the bidder exclusively without any equity participation by TEA. Alternatively, at the option of the bidder the project may be taken up by the bidder exclusively without any equity participation by TEA. In this case, the entire cost of the NOIDA-Greater Nodia Expressway shall be treated as interest-free loan to JV/SPV." (Emphasis supplied) The respondent No. 2 has exercised the second option of taking up the project exclusively, without entering into a joint venture. 25. As far the State Government is concerned, it does not have to contribute anything towards this project. The company undertaking the project has to put in its money for the entire project, and as per the terms, ultimately the company will be eligible to collect toll charges for a period of 36 years, which would be at the rates to be notified by the State Government. It was what is known as Built, Operate and Transfer (B.O.T.) Scheme. To compensate the company undertaking the project, at 5 different places (one of which is to be in NOIDA or Greater NOIDA), subject to availability, such company will be permitted to have 5 million square meters of land at each of the five places along expressway, to be used by it for establishing commercial, amusement, industrial, institutional and residential complexes. They are to be offered on acquisition cost, on lease for a period of 90 years. The cost of acquisition is to be paid by the company undertaking the project. These terms are recorded in paragraph 1.5 of the bid document, which is as follows: "The Expressway would pass through the virgin area along the River Yamuna. Land including 100 meters for the Expressway at five or more locations of which one location shall be in NOIDA or Greater NOIDA with an area of 5 million square meters along the Expressway for commercial, amusement, industrial, institutional and residential development would be offered on acquisition cost on lease for the period 90 years. The land shall be transferred to the JV/SPV as per its request and choice, subject to the availability and the Provision of Para 1.6. These sites as per the respective Area Master Plan will have 150 FAR. The land area for the said development will be 25 million square meters." 26. The land shall be transferred to the JV/SPV as per its request and choice, subject to the availability and the Provision of Para 1.6. These sites as per the respective Area Master Plan will have 150 FAR. The land area for the said development will be 25 million square meters." 26. The following clause in the Invitation of Offers is also very relevant and is thus quoted below : "The JV/SPV Company would be offered rights for collecting tolls and also rights for land development of about 25 million square meters of land along the proposed Expressway. Land including 100 meters for the Expressway at five or more locations of which one location shall be in NOIDA or GREATER NOIDA with an area of 5 million square meters along the Expressway for commercial, amusement, industrial, institutional and residential development would be offered on acquisition cost on lease for the period of 90 years." 27. Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, the petitioner, submitted that this would amount to giving huge land to the respondent No. 2-company on a platter. It is his contention that the actual cost of the project is just about Rs. 1680 Crores of which such a good bonanza of 25 million square meters land will be available to the respondent No. 2-company, the cost of which, according to Sri Srivastava, would be about Rs. 50,000 Crores. This is what he stated in paragraph 40 of the writ petition and in support thereof certain newspaper reports have also been annexed. 28. On the other hand Sri Salve, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 has pointed out that according to the petitioner himself, the cost of the portion of the highway between NOIDA and GREATER NOIDA (about 25 kms), which has already been constructed by the State Government, is Rs. 500 Crores. If that is so, the remaining portion from GREATER NOIDA to AGRA (of over 160 kms) will cost nearly Rs. 4000 Crores. That apart, he submitted that the cost of acquisition of land, which is to be borne by Respondent No. 2-company, is not covered in this figure. Besides this, the figure of Rs. 50,000 Crores is arrived at on the basis of the present price and not at the price in the year 2003, when the contract was awarded. Sri Srivastava relied upon few judgments in support of his submissions. Besides this, the figure of Rs. 50,000 Crores is arrived at on the basis of the present price and not at the price in the year 2003, when the contract was awarded. Sri Srivastava relied upon few judgments in support of his submissions. Amongst others, he relied upon the judgment in the case of Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corporation, (1988) 1 SCC 166 : 1988 (1) SCJ 251 and submitted that when it comes to allotment of public property without holding public auction, the departure from rules must be justified by compelling reasons and not by compromise. He submitted that Public Interest Litigation is the only mode by which the public can understand that in what manner the State owned property is being transferred to an individual house for a song. He also relied on the judgment of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628 and submitted that there should be no arbitrariness in the matter of public contract. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 to stress that the Court should examine the entire decision making process. It was submitted that in the case of Sachchidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (1987) 2 SCC 295 : AIR 1987 SC 1109 it has been held that the State or public owned property cannot be dealt with at the sweet will of the executive. Reliance upon the judgment of Ram & Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana, (1985) 3 SCC 267 has been placed to emphasize that the State officers must show exemplary vigilance in the interest of revenue and must act fairly in the auction of public property. 29. Sri Salve, on the other hand, drew our attention to a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of linking Bangalore with Mysore by an express highway, which is State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers Organisation, (2006) 4 SCC 683 wherein the Court had not permitted interference into the similar road project between Bangalore and Mysore. He also drew our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 350 where the Apex Court has laid down that the policy decision in respect of economic matters cannot be interfered, unless contrary to the Act or Constitution. He also drew our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 350 where the Apex Court has laid down that the policy decision in respect of economic matters cannot be interfered, unless contrary to the Act or Constitution. The policy was upheld by the Apex Court in that matter. Amongst others, he relied upon paragraph 45 of the judgment which reads as follows : "It is evident from the above that it is neither within 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 wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are our Courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical." While dealing with the question of transparency in the conduct of Government business, in paragraph 66 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has observed as follows : "...............Transparency does not mean the conducting of the Government business while sitting on the cross roads in public. Transparency would require that the manner in which decision is taken is made known. Persons who are to decide are not arbitrarily selected or appointed. Here we have the selection of the global adviser and the strategic partner through the process of issuance of global advertisement. It is the global Adviser who selected the valuer who was already on the list of valuers maintained by the Government. Whatever material was received was examined by High Power Committee known as the IMG and the ultimate decision was taken by the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestment. To say that there has been lack of transparency, under these circumstances, in uncharitable and without any basis." In paragraph 94 of the said judgment it was observed that "valuation is the question of fact and the Court will not interfere in matters of valuation unless the methodology adopted is arbitrary." 30. To say that there has been lack of transparency, under these circumstances, in uncharitable and without any basis." In paragraph 94 of the said judgment it was observed that "valuation is the question of fact and the Court will not interfere in matters of valuation unless the methodology adopted is arbitrary." 30. Now considering the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid judgments and submissions made by the parties, what is to be seen is whether, before finalising the contract in favour of respondent No. 2-company, the State Government or the respondent No. 3-TEA had undertaken the requisite research. The facts as are borne out from the record reveal that prior to the finalisation of the contract the State Government and the TEA had entered into various correspondences and examined all aspects of the matter before issuing bid document inviting offers. This categorical finding has been given by the Commission of Enquiry, and there is nothing on record to show that the same is bad or baseless. The tenders were advertised in various national dailies, to which 19 parties responded and ultimately only two were left in the fray. On these facts, it cannot be said that the entire process was done under cover or that the same was not transparent. 31. The submission of the petitioner that various concessions have been given to favour Respondent No. 2 by the agreement dated 7.2.2003, also does not have much force in view of the fact that all such concessions had been spelt out in the bid document and, thus, all parties making the offer were well aware of the concessions to be granted for the project by the State Government. 32. We have noted the submissions of the petitioner as well as the respondents. As already stated above, we neither find any substance in the allegation of mala fide nor of any procedural infirmity in the award of the contract. As far as merits of the contract are concerned, as already mentioned earlier, the Commission of Enquiry has gone into this question and has held that the Government officers had applied their mind and thereafter come to the conclusion that all relevant factors had been considered. Besides this, the officers of the State Government had also testified before the Commission. As far as merits of the contract are concerned, as already mentioned earlier, the Commission of Enquiry has gone into this question and has held that the Government officers had applied their mind and thereafter come to the conclusion that all relevant factors had been considered. Besides this, the officers of the State Government had also testified before the Commission. The Commission had in terms held that at the level of Government, there was a good deal of deliberations and consideration made before granting approval. The recommendations of the Commission were scrutinized by the Finance and Law departments and after that they were found to be in order. The scope of scrutiny by the Court in such matters is very limited, as has been held by the Apex Court in a number of judgments, leading one being in the case of BALCO Employees Union (supra). In the matters of economic policy or award of contract, the Court can go into the decision making process (as laid down in the cases of Tata Cellular (supra) but only when there is something unconscionable as held in BALCO Employees Union (supra). It is not for the Court to substitute its own view or approach, for that of the Government. Independent of this, we have also prima facie looked into the submission of the petitioner. What he is trying to contend on the basis of the present value of the land is that there will be a good bonanza for the respondent No. 2-Company. As pointed out earlier, the cost of the land acquisition is to be borne by respondent No. 2, which is not included in the cost estimated by the petitioner. The Government does not have to contribute anything. The toll charges are not to be determined by the respondent No. 2-Company, but will be at the rates notified by the State Government and the collection of toll is going to be for 36 years. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not think that the contract amounts to granting any favour to the respondent No. 2. 33. The toll charges are not to be determined by the respondent No. 2-Company, but will be at the rates notified by the State Government and the collection of toll is going to be for 36 years. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not think that the contract amounts to granting any favour to the respondent No. 2. 33. As regards the second leg of the submission relating to concession of stamp duty granted to respondent No. 2, the contention of the petitioner is that by Notification dated 17.11.2007 issued under Section 9(1)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 the State Government has granted exemption to the respondent No. 2 from payment of stamp duty. The said exemption is being granted "with a view to promoting large projects, having capital investment of Rs. 750 Crores or more", and the same is to be given effect from February 13, 2003. The said exemption is to be given to all such projects having capital investment of over Rs. 750 Crores, and when the Cabinet or the Sub Committee of the Cabinet on Economic Affairs find that the project is in public interest and that if such exemption is not granted, the project will not be financially viable. The submission of the respondent is that this notification has not been challenged in these proceedings and as such the validity of the same is not to be looked into. It has further been contended that mention of such concession which is being given, had been made in the bid documents of the project itself and as such issuance of such notification cannot be said to be unjustified. In our view, since the said notification is applicable to one and all falling in such category, if the respondent No. 2-company also qualifies for the same, it would be entitled to the benefit granted under the notification. The same cannot be said to be unreasonable or in favour of any one party. Further, the said notification is not under challenge and the validity of the same is thus not to be considered in these proceedings. 34. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to cost. 35. Further, the said notification is not under challenge and the validity of the same is thus not to be considered in these proceedings. 34. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to cost. 35. Before parting with this case, we may record the statement of Sri Salve, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 2, that though under the contract the project has to be completed much later, all endeavour shall be made by the respondent No. 2 to complete the same before the commencement of the Commonwealth Games in 2010. Further we also record the statements of all the learned Counsel appearing for all the respondents, including Sri Salve, that out of 5 parcel of land to be allotted to respondent No. 2 at five different places under the project, the respondent No. 2 shall be allotted only upto 5 million square meters of land at NOIDA or GREATER NOIDA and the other four places will be outside the area of NOIDA or GREATER NOIDA. ————