Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 464 (MP)

Manish Gupta v. State of M. P.

2012-04-30

BRIJ KISHORE DUBE, S.K.GANGELE

body2012
ORDER Gangele, J. -- 1. The petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation in regard to allotment of a land having area 374.91 acres situate at A-4, Residential Sector, Gwalior in favour of respondent No.13. 2. The petitioner is a co-auditor of a Hindi weekly newspapers “Mradang”. He pleaded that the land mentioned above has been allotted in favour of respondent No.13 on extraneous consideration in an arbitrary manner and a loss of Rs.100/- crores has been caused to the Government and to Special Area Development Authority in the allotment of land contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender notice. 3. The respondent No.7-Special Area Development Authority (Counter Magnet), Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SADA’) invited bids for residential plots on pre-qualification basis vide notification dated 23.11.2007. The notification was published in various newspapers and a wide publicity had been given to the notification. The area of the land is 374.91 acres, reserved price was fixed at Rs.40,30,54,812/- and earnest money was Rs.88.62 lacs. As per the terms and conditions of the tender, successful bidder would have to pay 25% of the total premium of the plot within 30 days from the date of issuance of reservation-cum-acceptance letter and rest 75% amount could be paid in lumpsum in six half yearly instalments with interest.The respondent No.13 along with other bidders submitted their bids in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement. The bid of respondent No.13 who offered Rs.58,00,01,001/- was accepted being highest and the aforesaid company was found eligible for allotment of the land. Consequently, a letter was issued in favour of M/s. Sunil Mantri Reality Limited in regard to allotment of land having area 374.91 acres in terms of the notification. The respondent No.13 was directed to pay the amount in the following instalments with interest on particular dates : Instalment Balance Yearly Interest @ 9% Total payable Due date premium instalment amount Second 43,50,00,750 10,87,50,188 3,91,50,068 14,79,00,256 31.3.2009 Third 32,62,50,560 10,87,50,188 2,93,62,551 13,81,12,739 31.3.2010 Fourth 21,75,00,374 10,87,50,188 1,95,75,034 12,83,25,222 31.3.2011 Fifth 10,87,50,186 10,87,50,188 97,87,517 11,85,37,703 31.3.2012 43,50,00,750 9,78,75,170 53,28,75,920 4. The respondent No.13 did not deposit the 25% premium amount which was required to be deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of reservation-cum-acceptance letter. The respondent No.13 did not deposit the 25% premium amount which was required to be deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of reservation-cum-acceptance letter. The respondent-Company deposited Rupees One crore on 25.3.2008 vide cheque No.132277 and thereafter on 19.5.2008, the respondent-Company had deposited three cheques of Rs.13.50 crores of different dates. As per the return filed by the SADA, the respondent-Company had deposited a total premium amount of Rs.25% 14,50,00,250/- upto 21.9.2010. Thereafter, a fresh allotment order was issued on 12.10.2010 in favour of respondent-Company and he was directed to pay rest of the amount in three instalments in following manner : Instalment Due Date Balance Amount of Interest Total amount Premium Instalment First 25.1.2011 43,50,00,751 14,50,00,250 11,74,50,203 2,62,45,045 Second 25.1.2012 29,00,00,501 14,50,00,250 2,61,00,045 17,11,002 Third 25.1.2013 14,50,00,250 14,50,00,250 1,30,50,023 15,80,502 58,00,01,001 15,66,00,270 43,66,012 5. The SADA also executed a lease-deed in favour of respondent No.13-Sunil Mantri Reality Limited of total area of 71.77 acres of land. The total premium amount of the land has been mentioned as Rs.11,10,31,106/ in the lease-deed dated 21.6.2011. The lease rent of the land has been fixed as Rs.92,820/- per year. The possession of the entire land i.e. 374.91 acres had also been handed over to respondent No.13 on 24.2.2010. 6. The respondents No.6 and 7 in their return pleaded that the petition filed by the petitioner is for an ulterior motive and not in public interest. The respondents further pleaded that the statutory rules have been framed in exercise of powers under section 85(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Adhiniyam of 1973’) for the purpose of allotment of land. The rules named as Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Viksit Bhoomiyon, Grihon, Bhavanon Tatha Anya Sanrachanaon Ka Vyayan Niyam, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Niyam of 1975’) and after following the due procedure in accordance with the aforesaid rules, a notification was published in the newspaper and tenders were invited. The tender of respondent No.13 was highest, hence, it was accepted. As per provision of rule 23 of the Niyam of 1975, the premium payable in respect of land could be recovered by the authority in instalments within a period of five years with interest of 7%. The tender of respondent No.13 was highest, hence, it was accepted. As per provision of rule 23 of the Niyam of 1975, the premium payable in respect of land could be recovered by the authority in instalments within a period of five years with interest of 7%. Hence, the respondent No.13 was directed to deposit the premium in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Niyam within a period of five years. It has further been pleaded that the last date for final payment of instalments of premium was 24.1.2012, hence, there is no illegality or irregularity in allotment of land. 7. The respondent No.13 in its separate return pleaded that the Company submitted its tender and it was accepted. It has further been pleaded that there were some discrepancies in regard to area of land and map which was submitted at the time of issuance of tender process, hence, the Company made correspondence with respondent-SADA and sought some clarification and after removal of clarification, the Company deposited the amount of Rs.14.50 crores as 25% premium upto 20.9.2010 and the Company also spent amount of Rs.1,02,43,655/- on registration of lease-deed, Development Charges Rs.3,44,41,959/-, Administrative Charges Rs.2,62,66,173/- and marketing cost Rs.2,40,09,791/-. It has been further pleaded that the Company spent nearabout Rs.25.00 crores upto 31.1.2012 and it has received an amount of Rs.10.85 crores from the customers against bookings. The respondent-Company further pleaded that the petitioner had demanded an amount of Rs.10.00 lacs from the respondent-Company, which was refused, hence, the present Public Interest Litigation has been filed, which is not maintainable. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent-Company did not follow the terms and conditions fixed at the time of allotment of land by SADA. It has deliberately given concessions, rather the whole terms and conditions of contract have been changed in order to give benefit to respondent No.13-Company, hence, there was no auction at all, because subsequently all the terms and conditions have been changed, even though, the Company had not paid the premium amount, the possession of the land has been handed over to the Company. He further submitted that the Company has unnecessarily being granted long time to deposit the amount, even though as per the subsequent allotment order, the Company has not deposited the instalments. He further submitted that the Company has unnecessarily being granted long time to deposit the amount, even though as per the subsequent allotment order, the Company has not deposited the instalments. From the aforesaid acts, it is clear that the respondent-Company has been favoured, hence, the action of the respondent-SADA is arbitrary and illegal. It is deliberately done to provide financial benefit to the respondent-Company. It has further been submitted that the respondent-Company had been permitted to receive deposits from the persons towards bookings of plots, however, there was no lease-deed executed in favour of the Company and there is no environment clearance. It has further been submitted that the contrary to the terms and conditions of initial contract, a lease-deed of 71.77 acres of land has been executed in favour of the Company, which is arbitrary and illegal, hence, an inquiry by the CBI be ordered and allotment of land in favour of respondent No.13-Company be cancelled. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.6 and 7, respondent No.13-Company and also the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5-State have vehemently argued that this Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable. It is further argued by the learned counsel that in order to develop the city, SADA has undertaken a development plan and because nobody was willing to come forward, hence, certain concessions were given to respondent No.13-Company in accordance with the provisions of the Niyam of 1975. It is within the authority of the SADA. It has further been submitted that the proper care has been taken in the event of award of contract in favour of respondent-Company and interest of SADA has also been kept in mind. Hence, this petition has to be dismissed. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments : “(i) P. Seshadri v. S. Mangati Gopal Reddy [ (2011)5 SCC 484 ]; (ii) Ashok Kumar Pnadey v. State of West Bengal [ (2004)3 SCC 349 ]; (iii) S.K. Dasgupta v. Vijay Singh Sengar [ (2010)12 SCC 305 ]; (iv) State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal [ (2010)3 SCC 402 ]; and (v) Kanhaiyalal Vishwakarma v. State of M.P. [ 2011(I) MPWN 120 =ILR (2011) M.P. 124]” 10. In regard to maintainability of the petition as Public Interest Litigation; we would consider the aforesaid point after considering the merit of the case. 11. It is an admitted fact that in accordance with the notification published by the SADA in the newspaper, it was obligatory on the part of successful bidders to pay 25% of the total premium amount of the land within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of reservation-cum-acceptance letter and rest of the 75% amount had to be paid in lumpsum in six half yearly instalments with interest.The first Letter of Intent was issued in favour of the Company vide order dated 22.5.2008, in which, it is mentioned that SADA in its meeting held on 25.1.2008 accepted the bid of respondent No.13-Company for allotment of total area of land of 374.91 acres on a premium of Rs.58,00,01,001/-. The respondent-Company was directed to pay the amount in four instalments upto 31.3.2012. The respondent-Company did not deposit even the 25% premium within 30 days from the date of issuance of this letter dated 22.5.2008. As per the return filed by the respondent-SADA, the respondent-Company paid 25% of the total premium amount on 21.9.2010, which was of Rs.14,50,00,250/-, it means that the Company had paid 25% premium amount, which was to be paid within a period of 30 days after a period of nearabout two years and two months. The instalments as fixed initially were also not paid by the Company. Thereafter, another allotment letter was issued on 12.10.2010 and the Company was directed to pay the amount in three instalments upto 25.1.2011, 25.1.2012 and last 24.1.2013. As per the return filed by the respondent-Company, it had paid the amount of Rs.15,30,00,250/- and the certain amounts on other heads, a total amount of Rs.24,79,61,828/-. Thereafter, another allotment letter was issued on 12.10.2010 and the Company was directed to pay the amount in three instalments upto 25.1.2011, 25.1.2012 and last 24.1.2013. As per the return filed by the respondent-Company, it had paid the amount of Rs.15,30,00,250/- and the certain amounts on other heads, a total amount of Rs.24,79,61,828/-. The relevant pleadings in this regard of the Company in the return are as under : “That, till date amount deposited by the answering respondent with the SADA Rs.15,30,00,250/- (Fifteen Crore thirty lacs two hundred and fifty only) while amount spent for registration of lease-deed Rs.1,02,43,655/- (One Crore two lacs forty three thousand six hundred and fifty five only) till date development charges Rs.3,44,41,959/- (Three Crores forty four lacs forty one thousand nine hundred and fifty nine only), Administration Cost Rs.2,62,66,173/- (Two crore sixty two lacs sixty six thousand one hundred and seventy three only) and marking cost Rs.2,40,09,791/- (Two Crore forty lacs nine thousand seven hundred and ninety one only) total amounting to Rs.24,79,61,828/- (Twenty four crore seventy nine lacs sixty one thousand eight hundred and twenty eight only) say Rs.25.00 crore (Twenty five crore only) till 31.1.2012 against which the answering respondent received from the customers Rs.10.85 crore (Ten Crore and eighty five lacs only) upto 31.1.2012. A copy of statement of account is enclosed as Annexure R-12-13.” 12. From the pleadings of the Company, it is clear that the Company had paid only an amount of Rs.15,30,00,250/- and it had also received an amount of Rs.10.85 crores from the customers as advance bookings and the Company had been handed over the possession of the entire land having area 374.91 acres and also a lease-deed of 71.77 acres has been executed in favour of the Company. There was no mention in the advertisement to the effect that a lease-deed of a part of the land could be executed by the SADA in favour of successful bidder. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Horizons Limited v. Union of India [ (1995)1 SCC 478 ], has held as under regard to applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the matter of entering into a contract by the State or a instrumentality of the State : “17. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Horizons Limited v. Union of India [ (1995)1 SCC 478 ], has held as under regard to applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the matter of entering into a contract by the State or a instrumentality of the State : “17. In the matter of entering into a contract, the State does not stand on the same footing as a private person who is free to enter into a contract with any person he likes. The State, in exercise of its various functions, is governed by the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution which excludes arbitrariness in State action and requires the State to act fairly and reasonably. The action of the State in the matter of award of a contract has to satisfy this criterion. Moreover, a contract would either involve expenditure from the State exchequer or augmentation of public revenue and consequently the discretion the matter of selection of the person for award of the contract has to be exercised keeping in view the public interest involved in such selection.Therefore, while dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largesse, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with the standards or norms which are not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. It is, however, recognised that certain measure of “free play in the joints” is necessary for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further in the case of Shimnit Utsch India Private Limited v. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited [ (2010)6 SCC 303 ], has held as under in regard to duty of the State or instrumentality of the State to waive the condition of the contract : “64. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further in the case of Shimnit Utsch India Private Limited v. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited [ (2010)6 SCC 303 ], has held as under in regard to duty of the State or instrumentality of the State to waive the condition of the contract : “64. It is true that the State or its tendering authority is bound to give effect to essential conditions of eligibility stated in a tender document and is not entitled to waive such conditions but that does not take away its administrative discretion to cancel the entire tender process in public interest provided such action is not actuated with ulterior motive or is otherwise not vitiated by any vice of arbitrariness or irrationality or in violation of some statutory provisions. It is always open to the State to give effect to new policy which it wished to pursue keeping in view “overriding public interest” and subject to principles of Wednesbury reasonableness.” 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further in the case of Central for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India [ (2012)3 SCC 1 ], has held as under in regard to doctrine of public trust and duty of the State or instrumentality of the State to act fairly in distribution of natural resources : “79. The doctrine of public trust, which was evolved in Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. People of the State of Illinois [146 US 387 (1892)], has been held by this Court to be a part of the Indian jurisprudence in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [ (1997)1 SCC 388 ], and has been applied in Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustee, Port of Mumbai [(2002)3 SCC 214], Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh [ (2006)3 SCC 549 ], and Fomento Resorts and Hotels Limited v. Minguel Martins [ (2009)3 SCC 571 ]. 80. In Jamshed Hormusji Wadia’s case, this Court held that the State’s actions and the actions of its agencies/instrumentalities must be for the public good, achieving the objects for which they exist and should not be arbitrary or capricious. In the field of contracts, the State and its instrumentalities should design their activities in a manner which would ensure competition and not discrimination. In the field of contracts, the State and its instrumentalities should design their activities in a manner which would ensure competition and not discrimination. They can augment their resources but the object should be to serve the public cause and to do public good by resorting to fair and reasonable methods. 81. In Fomento Resorts and Hotels Limited case, the Court referred to the article of Prof. Joseph L. Sax and made the following observations : “53. The public trust doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. This doctrine puts an implicit embargo on the right of the State to transfer public properties to private party if such transfer affects public interest, mandates affirmative State action for effective management of natural resources and empowers the citizens to question ineffective management thereof. 54. The heart of the public trust doctrine is that it imposes limits and obligations upon Government agencies and their administrators on behalf of all the people and especially future generations. For example, renewable and non-renewable resources, associated uses, ecological values or objects in which the public has a special interest (i.e. public lands, waters, etc.) are held subject to the duty of the State not to impair such resources, uses or values, even if private interests are involved. The same obligations apply to managers of forests, monuments, parks, the public domain and other public assets. Professor Joseph L. Sax in his classic article and quot. The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resources Law : Effective Judicial Intervention and quot; (1970), indicates that the public trust doctrine, of all concepts known to law, constitutes the best practical and philosophical premise and legal tool for protecting public rights and for protecting and managing resources, ecological values or objects held in trust. 55. The public trust doctrine is a tool for exerting long-established public rights over short term public rights and private gain. Today every person exercising his or her right to use the air, water, or land and associated natural ecosystems has the obligation to secure for the rest of us the right to live or otherwise use that same resource or property for the long term and enjoyment by future generations. Today every person exercising his or her right to use the air, water, or land and associated natural ecosystems has the obligation to secure for the rest of us the right to live or otherwise use that same resource or property for the long term and enjoyment by future generations. To say it another way, a landowner or lessee and a water right holder has an obligation to use such resources in a manner as not to impair or diminish the people’s rights and the people’s long term interest in that property or resource, including down slope lands, waters and resources.” 82. In Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal [ (1995)2 SCC 161 ], the Court was dealing with the right of organizers of an event, such as a sport tournament, to its live audio-visual broadcast, universally, through an agency of their choice, national or foreign. In paragraph 78, the Court described the airwaves/frequencies as public property in the following words : “78. There is no doubt that since the airwaves/frequencies are a public property and are also limited, they have to be used in the best interest of the society and this can be done either by a Central authority by establishing its own broadcasting network or regulating the grant of licences to other agencies, including the private agencies.” 83. In Reliance Natural Resources Limited v. Reliance Industries Limited [ (2010)7 SCC 1 ], P. Sathasivam, J., with whom Balakrishnan, C.J., agreed, made the following observations : “114. It must be noted that the constitutional mandate is that the natural resources belong to the people of this country. The nature of the word and quot; vest and quot; must be seen in the context of the public trust doctrine (PTD). Even through this doctrine has been applied in cases dealing with environmental jurisprudence, it has its broader application.” 84. Learned Judge then referred to the judgments, in re Special Reference No.1 of 2001 (2004)4 SCC 489 , M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [ (1997)1 SCC 388 ], and observed : “116. This doctrine is part of Indian law and finds application in the present case as well. Learned Judge then referred to the judgments, in re Special Reference No.1 of 2001 (2004)4 SCC 489 , M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [ (1997)1 SCC 388 ], and observed : “116. This doctrine is part of Indian law and finds application in the present case as well. It is thus the duty of the Government to provide complete protection to the natural resources as a trustee of the people at large.” The Court also held that natural resources are vested with the Government as a matter of trust in the name of the people of India, thus, it is the solemn duty of the State to protect the national interest and natural resources must always be used in the interests of the country and not private interests. 85. As natural resources are public goods, the doctrine of equality, which emerges from the concepts of justice and fairness, must guide the State in determining the actual mechanism for distribution of natural resources. In this regard, the doctrine of equality has two aspects : first, it regulates the rights and obligations of the State vis-a-vis its people and demands that the people be granted equitable access to natural resources and/or its products and that they are adequately compensated for the transfer of the resource to the private domain; and second, it regulates the rights and obligations of the State vis-a-vis private parties seeking to acquire/use the resource and demands that the procedure adopted for distribution is just, non-arbitrary and transparent and that it does not discriminate between similarly placed private parties. 86. In Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of M.P. [ (2011)5 SCC 29 ], this Court examined the legality of the action taken by the Government of Madhya Pradesh to allot 20 acres land to an institute established in the name of Kushabhau Thakre on the basis of an application made by the trust. One of the grounds on which the appellant challenged the allotment of land was that the State Government had not adopted any rational method consistent with the doctrine of equality. The High Court negatived the appellant’s challenge. One of the grounds on which the appellant challenged the allotment of land was that the State Government had not adopted any rational method consistent with the doctrine of equality. The High Court negatived the appellant’s challenge. Before this Court, learned senior counsel appearing for the State relied upon the judgments in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration [ (2001)3 SCC 635 ], State of U.P. v. Choudhary Rambeer Singh [ (2008)5 SCC 550 ], State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash [ (2005)13 SCC 495 ], and Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies [ (2009)6 SCC 171 ], and argued that the Court cannot exercise the power of judicial review to nullify the policy framed by the State Government to allot Nazul land without advertisement. 87., This Court rejected the argument, referred to the judgments in Ramanna Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [ (1979)3 SCC 489 ], S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India [ AIR 1967 SC 1427 ], Kasturilal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J and K [ (1980)4 SCC 1 ], Common Cause v. Union of India [ (1996)6 SCC 530 ], Shrilekha Vidyarthy v. State of U.P. [ (1991)1 SCC 212 ], LIC v. Consumer Education and Research Centre [ (1995)5 SCC 482 ], New India Public School v. HUDA [ (1996)5 SCC 510 ], and held : “65. What needs to be emphasised is that the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the political entities and/or officers of the State. Every action/decision of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to give largesse or confer benefit must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well-defined policy, which shall be made known to the public by publication in the Official Gazette and other recognised modes of publicity and such policy must be implemented/executed by adopting a non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary method irrespective of the class or category of persons proposed to be benefited by the policy. The distribution of largesse like allotment of land, grant of quota, permit licence, etc. by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favouritism or nepotism shall not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or officer of the State.” 88. The distribution of largesse like allotment of land, grant of quota, permit licence, etc. by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favouritism or nepotism shall not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or officer of the State.” 88. In Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal [ (1987)2 SCC 295 ], the Court referred to some of the precedents and laid down the following propositions : “40. State-owned or public-owned property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive. Certain precepts and principles have to be observed. Public interest is the paramount consideration. One of the methods of securing the public interest, when it is considered necessary to dispose of a property, is to sell the property by public auction or by inviting tenders. Though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons necessitating departure from the rule but then the reasons for the departure must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Nothing should be done which gives an appearance of bias, jobbery or nepotism.” 89. In conclusion, we hold that the State is the legal owner of the natural resources as a trustee of the people and although it is empowered to distribute the same, the process of distribution must be guided by the constitutional principles including the doctrine of equality and larger public good.” 16. From the aforesaid quoted judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that instrumentality of the State cannot act arbitrarily in the matter of grant of contract. The instrumentality of the State has no power and authority to waive the condition of contract unilaterally in order to give benefit to a particular person. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the instrumentality of the State is a legal owner of the natural resources as a trustee of the people. The process of distribution must be fair, reasonable and without any bias. In the present case, the respondent No.13 did not deposit 25% premium amount within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of reservation-cum-acceptance letter and it had taken more than two years in depositing 25% premium amount. The process of distribution must be fair, reasonable and without any bias. In the present case, the respondent No.13 did not deposit 25% premium amount within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of reservation-cum-acceptance letter and it had taken more than two years in depositing 25% premium amount. The respondent-Company also did not deposit the entire premium amount in accordance with the initial letter of award of contract. Subsequently, another letter was issued, however, the Company also did not comply the terms and conditions of the letter. A lease-deed of 71.77 acres of land has been executed in favour of the Company, however, as per the advertisement, it was necessary to deposit all the amount and thereafter, a lease-deed of total area of land 374.91 acres can be executed. The Company was also given possession of the entire land, even though it did not deposit the total amount, neither any lease-deed of 374.91 acres was executed in favour of the Company. Hence, the SADA has changed the terms and conditions of the contract completely. It is in favour of the Company. The Company is also permitted to receive an amount of Rs.10.85 lacs from the customers as advance bookings, however, as per initial advertisement, the successful bidder could only start construction after depositing all the amount of contract. Hence, the action of the authority is arbitrary, illegal and mala fide and it has been done to give benefit to respondent No.13-Company. 17. In regard to maintainability of the writ petition as Public Interest Litigation; the petitioner pleaded that he is a peace loving person, although the respondent No.13 made some allegations against the petitioner, however, there is no proof in regard to allegations, neither any complaint has been made by the respondent No.13 in support of the allegations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, reported in (2010)3 SCC 402 , in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the concept of public interest litigation and also considered various earlier judgments and judgment of apex Courts of other countries in this subject and held as under in regard to maintainability of the public interest litigation : “25. Public interest litigation has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) as under : “Public Interest. Public interest litigation has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) as under : “Public Interest. -- Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national Government.” “26. Advanced Law Lexicon has defined “public interest litigation” as under : “.... the expression ‘PIL’ means a legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community has pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” “27. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in USA defined “public interest litigation” in its Report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows : “10. .... Public interest law is the name that has recently been given to efforts providing legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary market place for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities.” {Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra [ (2007)14 SCC 281 : AIR 2008 SC 913 , SCC p.288, para 10 : AIR p.918, para 19]}. (Emphasis supplied) “28. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities.” {Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra [ (2007)14 SCC 281 : AIR 2008 SC 913 , SCC p.288, para 10 : AIR p.918, para 19]}. (Emphasis supplied) “28. This Court in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India [ (1982)3 SCC 235 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 275], defined “public interest litigation” and observed that (SCC p.242, para 2) the public interest litigation is a cooperative or collaborative effort by the petitioner, the State or public authority and the judiciary to secure observance of constitutional or basic human rights, benefits and privileges upon the poor, downtrodden and vulnerable sections of the society.” After considering its earlier judgments and also judgments of the apex Court of other countries, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal (supra), has issued the following guidelines in regard to Public Interest Litigation : “(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entering a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.” After perusal of the aforesaid judgment and facts of the case, in our opinion, the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable. 18. The next question is that what relief can be granted in this Public Interest Litigation. A lease-deed of 71.77 acres of land has already been executed in favour of respondent No.13-Company. The respondent No.13-Company paid the premium amount of the aforesaid land. It also received advance bookings from the customers of Rs.10.85 crores offering flats or houses to the customers. If the allotment of entire land of 374.91 acres be cancelled, then the customers who have paid the amount would suffer adversely and their hard earned money may be lost. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, it would not be just and proper to cancel the lease-deed of 71.77 acres of land, which has already been executed in favour of the respondent No.13-Company, however, allotment of rest of the land i.e. 303.14 acres (374.91 acres - 71.77 acres) in favour of respondent No.13-Company is illegal, hence, it is hereby cancelled. 19. Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is disposed of with the following directions : (a) That, the allotment of remaining land i.e. 303.14 acres (374.91 acres - 71.77 acres) out of total 374.91 acres, except 71.77 acres of land for which a lease-deed has already been executed in favour of the respondent No.13-Company is hereby cancelled. (b) That, the respondent No.13-Company is directed to hand over the possession of the aforesaid land to the SADA immediately and possession of the SADA over the aforesaid area of land is hereby restored. (c) The SADA is at liberty to issue fresh advertisement for allotment of 303.14 acres of land in accordance with scheme as per law. (d) That, the respondent No.13-Company shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the petitioner. .............