Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1120 (BOM)

Rutu Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra

2013-06-20

A.R.JOSHI, A.S.OKA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The submissions were heard yesterday. However, order was not passed to enable the learned AGP appearing in W.P. (L) No.969/2013 to take instructions. 2. These petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment as issues involved are more or less identical. The Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the MSRDC” ) which is a Government of Maharashtra Undertaking and which is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 executed contracts with various contractors in relation to space under 21 flyovers in the cities of Mumbai, Thane and Navi Mumbai. The contracts were for beautification/landscaping and maintenance thereof with utilization of the space under the flyovers for display of advertisement/ showrooms and pay and parking activities. The challenge in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the notices issued in March, 2013 by which foreclosure of the contracts in respect of five flyovers was made by the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (for short MSRDC). The petitioners-contractors were called upon to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the space under the flyovers put in their possession. 3. Submissions have been canvassed by the learned senior counsel Shri A.Y. Sakhare, learned counsel Shri M.P. Shetye, learned counsel Shri Mehta, learned counsel Shri Savagave in support of their different petitions. 4. The first submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned notices have been issued to each of the petitioners in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was granted to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners have invited our attention to the grounds set out in the impugned notices. It is pointed out that the notices are based only on the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of MSRDC on 22nd December, 2012 by which it was decided to foreclose the on going contracts of the similar nature for security reasons. Our attention was also invited to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the MSRDC by Shri Sanjiv Dattatray Madake, Executive Engineer of the MSRDC. It is pointed out that reliance was sought to be placed on the directions allegedly issued in the meeting dated 27th June, 2008 by the Hon'ble Chief Minister. From the affidavit, it appears that admittedly, the minutes of the meeting were served on the MSRDC in or about July, 2009. It is pointed out that reliance was sought to be placed on the directions allegedly issued in the meeting dated 27th June, 2008 by the Hon'ble Chief Minister. From the affidavit, it appears that admittedly, the minutes of the meeting were served on the MSRDC in or about July, 2009. It is pointed out that in the minutes of the meeting it is recorded that it was resolved that for security reasons, parking under the flyovers should be forthwith discontinued as there is every possibility of destruction of flyovers. The said minutes record that space under the flyovers should be given to the entrepreneurs for the purpose of beautification/landscaping and maintenance thereof. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that notwithstanding the said decision, the contracts with the petitioners were subsequently executed. The submission is that after having executed the contracts with full knowledge of what transpired in the said meeting, the MSRDC is estopped from raising a contention that for security reasons or due to threat perception, the space under the flyovers cannot be allowed to be used for parking of vehicles. Our attention was also invited to the order dated 24th August, 2012 passed in PIL No.130/2011. It is contended that there is no direction issued by this Court in the PIL to the MSRDC to terminate the subsisting contracts. It is submitted that the MSRDC cannot rely upon the voluntary statement made by its counsel in the PIL. Our attention was also invited to minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors and in particular the resolution passed therein in relation to the contracts in question. It is pointed out that it is merely stated that the decision was taken to foreclose the contracts in view of the security reasons. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the nature of threat perception or security reasons have not been incorporated in the resolution. It is submitted that contract was sought to be foreclosed on the non existing grounds and for non existing reasons. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the substantial investment made by the petitioners. The contention is that the petitioners have acted upon the contract and have invested huge funds in the projects. It is submitted that contract was sought to be foreclosed on the non existing grounds and for non existing reasons. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the substantial investment made by the petitioners. The contention is that the petitioners have acted upon the contract and have invested huge funds in the projects. It is contended that the MSRDC is the State within the meaning of Article 12 which is expected to act fairly and reasonably and, therefore, the action for foreclosure of the contracts is completely arbitrary and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that instead of drastic action of termination of contracts, the MSRDC could have always called upon the petitioners to make arrangements for screening of the vehicles for ensuring security. It is submitted that security of the flyovers could have been guaranteed by enforcing necessary security measures and that the arbitrary and irrational action of foreclosure of the contracts could not have been taken by the MSRDC. 5. The learned senior counsel Shri Sakhare appearing for the petitioners in one of the petitions invited our attention to the photographs tendered across the Bar of certain flyovers in the City which show pathetic state of affairs as regards the space under the flyovers. It is stated that anti-social elements have taken over the spaces under flyovers and in some cases, slums have come up. In one of the petitions, our attention was invited to various clauses in the contract and it was contended that the clause relating to foreclosure has no application. In Writ Petition No.430 of 2013, it was contended that contracts are not only to enable the contractors to use the space for pay and park scheme, but after completing beautification and landscaping of the space under the flyovers, the contractors were entitled to use the space for advertisement/show rooms. Thus, submission is that by reducing compensation amount, the contractors may be permitted to continue the contracts as regards the display of advertisement/show rooms. 6. Without prejudice to the contentions raised earlier, it was pointed out that the malafides in the actions of the MSRDC are apparent from the fact that a specific amount by way of compensation or damages is not offered to the petitioners. 6. Without prejudice to the contentions raised earlier, it was pointed out that the malafides in the actions of the MSRDC are apparent from the fact that a specific amount by way of compensation or damages is not offered to the petitioners. It is submitted that this Court should direct the MSRDC to quantify the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners and this direction may be issued without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to adopt appropriate remedy for enhancement of the compensation. Lastly, it is submitted that in a case like this, after taking illegal and high handed action, the MSRDC cannot be petitioners-contractors to the civil court and to litigate for years. We may note here that reliance has been placed on the several decisions of the Apex Court on the issue of power of this Court to interfere in contractual matters in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned counsel for the MSRDC invited our attention to various clauses in the agreement and urged that the MSRDC was well within its powers to foreclose the contracts. It is submitted that the relevant clauses make it clear that the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation. The learned counsel for the MSRDC submitted that no one can deny that there exists a threat perception in relation to twenty one flyovers in respect of which contracts were executed. He submitted that wherever contracts came to an end, the MSRDC did not extend the contracts as is apparent from the order passed by the Division Bench in PIL. Our attention was also invited to the decision arrived at in the meeting held on 22nd June, 2008. The learned counsel submitted that as there cannot be any dispute regarding threat perception and as the MSRDC has acted well within the stipulations in the contract, this Court cannot interfere in the writ jurisdiction. He urged that the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation under the contracts. The State Government has supported the decision of the MSRDC. 8. The learned counsel submitted that as there cannot be any dispute regarding threat perception and as the MSRDC has acted well within the stipulations in the contract, this Court cannot interfere in the writ jurisdiction. He urged that the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation under the contracts. The State Government has supported the decision of the MSRDC. 8. We may note here that yesterday, during the course of the hearing, we had made a query to the learned counsel for the MSRDC as to why after receiving minutes of the meeting dated 27th June, 2008, contracts were executed in favour of the petitioners permitting them to use the space under the flyovers for pay and parking scheme. The learned counsel for the MSRDC pointed out that no representative of the MSRDC was present in the meeting held on 27th June, 2008 and a copy of minutes was received by the MSRDC in July, 2009. We had granted time to the learned Assistant Government Pleader to take instructions whether the State proposes to take any action inasmuch as the MSRDC appears to have acted contrary to the directions of the State Government by executing the contracts. Today, the learned Assistant Government Pleader states that within the short time granted by this Court, he could not obtain appropriate instructions. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions. It is not necessary to go into the issue of power of writ Court to interfere in contractual matters. The law is well settled. Such power does exist which is subject to well established self imposed limitations. The issue is, whether in the facts of these cases, this Court should exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing a writ of mandamus. 10. It will be necessary to make a reference to minutes of the meeting held on 27 June, 2008. The minutes show that the meeting was chaired by the Hon'ble Chief Minister. The Secretary of the Housing Department, the Secretary of the Town Development Department as well as the Managing Director of the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd were present. Apart from them, the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of City Navi Mumbai, the Chief Executive Officer of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, the Director of Town Planning of the State Government and the Deputy Director of Town Planning were also present. Apart from them, the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of City Navi Mumbai, the Chief Executive Officer of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, the Director of Town Planning of the State Government and the Deputy Director of Town Planning were also present. Item No.7 is in respect of the space under the flyovers constructed by the MSRDC as well as the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA for short). It is noted in the minutes that the vehicles are being parked under the flyovers. It is observed that in case of sabotage, the vehicles will be put on fire and there will be every danger to the flyovers. Therefore, it was resolved that parking under the flyovers shall not be permitted and the beautification/landscaping of the space under the flyovers shall be made through entrepreneurs. It is specifically recorded that MSRDC shall immediately implement the said decision and directions be issued to all Planning Authorities. Time of one month was fixed for implementation. It is true that the minutes do not show that a representative of the MSRDC was present in the meeting. However, to the affidavit in reply filed by the MSRDC, a communication dated 27th July, 2008 issued by the Secretary of the State Government addressed to the Managing Director of the MSRDC has been annexed. Along with the said communication, a copy of minutes of the meeting dated 27th June, 2008 was forwarded to the MSRDC. There is another letter dated 28th July, 2009 annexed to the affidavit in reply of the MSRDC which is again sent by the Secretary of the State Government to the Managing Director of the MSRDC and other officers. The said letter specifically records that the minutes of the meeting dated 27th June, 2008 were already forwarded for taking necessary action. By the said letter dated 28th July, 2009, the Managing Director of the MSRDC was called upon to submit information on the very day as regards the implementation of the decision taken in the meeting. 11. The learned counsel for the MSRDC states that the copy of the minutes dated 27th July, 2008 was forwarded to the MSRDC for the first time along with the letter dated 28th July, 2009. On this aspect, it will be necessary to make a reference to the affidavit-in-reply of the MSRDC. 11. The learned counsel for the MSRDC states that the copy of the minutes dated 27th July, 2008 was forwarded to the MSRDC for the first time along with the letter dated 28th July, 2009. On this aspect, it will be necessary to make a reference to the affidavit-in-reply of the MSRDC. The paragraph No.4 of the affidavit in reply reads thus :- “I say that a decision was taken by the State Government in a meeting presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 27th June, 2008 for putting an end to the use of space below flyovers for parking due to security reason. A copy of the said Minutes of the Meeting dated 27th June, 2008 was received by MSRDC in or about July, 2009. A copy of the said Minutes is annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit-1”. (Underline supplied). 12. It is not the case made out in the affidavit in reply that the Chairman or the Managing Director or the Joint Managing Director or any other Higher Officers were not aware of the decision arrived at on 27th June,2008. In fact, going by paragraph No.4, the MSRDC correctly understood that decisions taken in the said meeting were in fact in the nature of the directions issued by the State Government. Thus, even going by the stand taken by the MSRDC, there was a specific direction issued by the State Government on 28 th June, 2008 to put an end to the use of the space under the flyovers for parking of vehicles due to security reasons. In any case, the MSRDC was fully aware of the said decision in July, 2009. We may note here that all contracts except one which are subject matters of these petitions were executed after July, 2009 and in one case, the contract is executed in the year 2010. It is pointed out that in one case, the contract is of April, 2009. Thus, going by the stand taken by the MSRDC itself, all contracts except the one were executed by the MSRDC which is a Government of Maharashtra Undertaking in complete breach of the directions issued by the State Government on 27th June, 2008. It is pointed out that in one case, the contract is of April, 2009. Thus, going by the stand taken by the MSRDC itself, all contracts except the one were executed by the MSRDC which is a Government of Maharashtra Undertaking in complete breach of the directions issued by the State Government on 27th June, 2008. Thus, the contracts in question, insofar as they permit the contractors to use the space under the flyovers for pay and park scheme have been executed completely in breach of the direction issued by the State Government which was binding on the MSRDC. Even assuming that the MSRDC was not aware of the direction of the State Government dated 28th June, 2008 till July 2009, after receiving a copy of the direction in July, the MSRDC did not take action as regards the contract executed in April 2009. 13. Before we go to another issue, it will be necessary to make a reference to the order dated 24th August, 2012 passed by this Court in PIL No. 130/2011. We must note here that the grievance in the PIL was as regards the decision of the State Government to ban parking under the flyovers. It was contended that in the commercial cities there is a space crunch and adequate parking is not available. In paragraph No.3 of the order, the Division Bench has noted the submissions made on behalf of the MSRDC wherein it was contended that the decision of banning parking under the flyovers was required to be taken in view of the security threats and for serving larger public interest. A specific contention was raised by the MSRDC in the PIL that the said decision of the MSRDC is based on the Government decision dated 27th June, 2008. This again confirms the fact that the MSRDC was fully aware about the said decision. A statement of the MSRDC was recorded in the said order that the contracts which were already over, will not be extended. As regards the contracts in force in paragraph (3), it is observed thus:- So far as the contracts where contract period is yet to be over, the counsel for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that appropriate steps in respect of these contracts, considering the security threat, shall be taken without further delay. Counsel for the respondent no. As regards the contracts in force in paragraph (3), it is observed thus:- So far as the contracts where contract period is yet to be over, the counsel for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that appropriate steps in respect of these contracts, considering the security threat, shall be taken without further delay. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that all the flyovers in the city are not within the jurisdiction of respondent no. 1, some of them fall within the jurisdiction of the State Government as well as Corporation. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 further contended that in future, the space below the flyovers shall not be permitted to be used either for parking nor would be given to the contractors on pay and park basis. On the other hand, these spaces will be utilized for beautification of the city. (underline supplied) 14. The stand of the State as reflected from paragraph No.4 of the order is that that appropriate steps shall be taken to ensure that space under such flyovers shall not be used for parking of any vehicles. Paragraph No.5 of the order in the PIL clearly notes the decision of the State Government taken in the year 2008 in that behalf considering the security threat issue. It will be material to make a reference to paragraph No.6 of the said judgment and order in PIL. The Division Bench of this Court observe thus:- “It is no doubt true that so far as the security perception/threat is concerned, the respondents need to take immediate appropriate steps in this regard, however, we would like to know from respondent no. 1 as well as from the State Government that what is the mechanism they would evolve in order to ensure that in future, no vehicle of any kind would be permitted to be parked under flyovers till such time security threat persists.” (underline added). 15. The Division Bench did not issue directions to MSRDC to terminate the existing contracts. But, the Division Bench in so many words observed that it was necessary for the respondents to take immediate appropriate steps considering the security perception/threat. In fact, the Division Bench directed that the State Government as well as the MSRDC should disclose as to what is the mechanism which they would evolve to ensure that no vehicle should be parked under the flyovers. In fact, the Division Bench directed that the State Government as well as the MSRDC should disclose as to what is the mechanism which they would evolve to ensure that no vehicle should be parked under the flyovers. Thus, it is crystal clear that the Division Bench was of the view that considering the security issue or threat perception, the use of the space the flyovers for parking needs to be stopped. 16. We now turn to the material terms and conditions of the contracts. It is true that contract is for beautification/landscaping and maintenance of the space under the flyovers with utilization of the space for display of advertisements/show rooms and pay and parking activities. Clause 70 of the Agreement reads thus :- “Foreclosure of contract in full or part : If at any time, the Corporation decides to withdraw the contract, the Corporation shall be at liberty to terminate or suspend the contract partly or fully even before the expiry of the contract period by giving thirty (30) days notice. In the event of foreclosure/suspension of the contract, the Contractor shall not be entitled to claim any compensation due to such termination/ suspension of the contract. (underline supplied) Clause 70 empowers the MSRDC to terminate or suspend the contract partly or fully even before the expiry of contract period by giving thirty days' notice. It is clearly provided therein that in the event of termination/suspension of the contract, the Contractor shall not be entitled to claim any compensation due to such termination/suspension of the contract. Another important clause in the agreement is clause No.26 reads thus :- “It is hereby agreed that in the event of the site being required by MSRDC for any other purpose or for Municipal use or if it is required to discontinue the parking scheme for any reason whatsoever, the Corporation has liberty to terminate the Contract even before the expiry of the Contract period and Contractor shall vacate the site forthwith and shall not claim any compensation, damages or loss and shall not claim any alternate site. However, the Contractor will be entitled to claim rebate proportionate to the period for which the area is not used for parking scheme”. (underline supplied) 17. However, the Contractor will be entitled to claim rebate proportionate to the period for which the area is not used for parking scheme”. (underline supplied) 17. According to us, clause No.26 is crystal clear which retains power with the MSRDC to terminate the contract even before the expiry of contract period, if MSRDC is required to discontinue the parking for any reason whatsoever. It provides that in such case, contractor shall not be entitled to claim compensation, damages or loss and shall not claim any alternate site. In such event, the contractor will be entitled to claim the rebate proportionate to the period for which the area is not used for parking scheme. 18. Now, coming to the impugned notices, the same are based on resolution passed on 22 nd December, 2012 by the board of the MSRDC. The resolution records that it was resolved to foreclose 12 on going contracts for the security purpose as was stated in the Agenda of the meeting. Thus, the foreclosure is on account of threat perception and/or security reasons. 19. At this stage, we must make a note of an argument canvassed on behalf of the petitioners that necessary precautionery measures can be taken to take care of threat perception. Reliance is placed on letter dated 5th December, 2012, issued by the Senior Police Inspector of Kherwadi Police Station, Mumbai addressed to the Manager, MHADA (Parking Place). Considering what has happened in City of Mumbai from the year 1993 onwards, it is impossible for anybody to contend that there is an absence of threat perception. In fact, it is obvious that the said letter dated 5th December, 2012 is based on the threat perception. When there is a threat perception, the authorities are not expected to take a chance and continue parking of vehicles under the flyovers till some unfortunate incident occurs. 20. We have already observed that the contracts were executed and/or continued by the MSRDC in breach of the binding directions issued by the State Government. Even assuming that the action of termination is illegal or arbitrary, the question is whether this Court should issue a writ of mandamus. In view of the directions issued by the State Government, the MSRDC could not have executed the contracts permitting parking under the flyovers. Even assuming that the action of termination is illegal or arbitrary, the question is whether this Court should issue a writ of mandamus. In view of the directions issued by the State Government, the MSRDC could not have executed the contracts permitting parking under the flyovers. We are of the view that a writ cannot be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for restoring the contracts which were unlawfully executed in breach of the direction issued by the State Government. 21. At this stage, we may make a reference to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC 487 and in particular paragraph No.4 thereof: “The distinction between writs issued as a matter of right such as habeas corpus and those issued in exercise of discretion such as certiorari and mandamus are well known and explained in countless decisions given by this Court and English Courts. It is not necessary to recount them. The High Courts exercise control over Government functioning and ensure obedience of rules and law by enforcing proper, fair and just performance of duty. Where the Government or any authority passes an order which is contrary to rules or law it becomes amenable to correction by the courts in exercise of writ jurisdiction. But one of the principles inherent in it is that the exercise of power should be for the sake of justice. One of the yardstick for it is if the quashing of the order results in greater harm to the society then the court may restrain from exercising the power.” (underline added) 22. The Apex Court has reiterated that a writ of certiorari and mandamus are issued in exercise of discretion. The Apex Court has reiterated that one of the yardsticks for exercise of discretion is that if quashing of the order results in greater harm to the society, then the Court should refrain from exercising the power. We may also make useful a reference to the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Anr vs. State of Maharashtra and others (1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 134 and in particular paragraph 10 thereof. It reads thus : “Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power of granting stay/injunction. It reads thus : “Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power of granting stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 – indeed any of their discretionary powers.” (underline added) 23. While exercising writ jurisdiction, the Courts have to see public interest vis-a-vis the private interest. The Court has to keep a larger public interest in mind. We have already observed that no one can deny the existence of serious security concern. We are dealing with the contract which could not have been executed by the MSRDC. For the reasons stated above, this is not a fit case, where a writ Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 24. It is true that though MSRDC could not have executed the contracts, the MSRDC executed the contracts which led to the petitioners investing the huge amounts as stated by them. In the circumstances, though we are not entertaining the writ petitions, we deem it proper to reserve the liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings for recovery of compensation/damages. We are keeping all questions in that behalf expressly open. 25. As a writ Court, we simply cannot ignore the role played by the MSRDC. In fact, the State Government should have placed on record the date on which the MSRDC was made aware of the direction issued by the State Government on 28th June, 2008. In any event, admittedly the MSRDC was fully aware in July, 2009 about the direction issued by the State Government which was of a binding nature. Notwithstanding the direction, contracts were executed permitting contractors to use the space under the flyovers for pay and park scheme. In any event, admittedly the MSRDC was fully aware in July, 2009 about the direction issued by the State Government which was of a binding nature. Notwithstanding the direction, contracts were executed permitting contractors to use the space under the flyovers for pay and park scheme. Apart from binding direction of the State Government, the MSRDC was fully aware of the threat perception. In one case, the contract was executed in July, 2009. Nevertheless after receiving the copy of Government directives, necessary action could have been taken. We have extensively referred to the order of 24th August 2012 of the Division Bench in PIL which takes a note of directions issued by the State Government in the year 2008. In fact, the MSRDC relied upon the said directions of the State Government. Surprisingly, the MSRDC kept quiet thereafter for a considerably long time and waited till 22nd December, 2012 to pass a resolution. Implementation of the resolution took three months more. All this have to be appreciated in the light of the security threat to the flyovers about which MSRDC and its officers were fully aware. All this has led to the petitioners investing money in the project. This has created litigation in this Court. Moreover, if the petitioners succeed in obtaining order of compensation, the public exchequer will suffer. Therefore, while dismissing the petitions, we will be failing in our duty if we do not direct the State Government to inquire into the actions of the MSRDC and to fix the responsibility on the officers of the MSRDC. We, therefore, propose to direct the Chief Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra to nominate any Senior IAS Officer to hold a fact finding inquiry into the role played by the officers of the MSRDC including all its high raking officers. These Petitions are pending in this Court for quite sometime. The State Government has failed to take notice of the breach of its own direction committed by the MSRDC which is a Government of Maharashtra Undertaking. While exercising writ jurisdiction, in some other matters, we have noticed that whenever the State Government wants to act it can do so within no time. We hope the State Government will take prompt action. 26. While exercising writ jurisdiction, in some other matters, we have noticed that whenever the State Government wants to act it can do so within no time. We hope the State Government will take prompt action. 26. Before we close this judgment, we must note the callous approach of both the MSRDC as well as the State Government, when even according to them, the threat perception relates to as many as 12 flyovers in the city of Mumbai and Thane. 27. We make it clear that notwithstanding this order, it will be open for the petitioners to make an appropriate representation to the MSRDC for continuing contracts with modification of terms and conditions as it is contended by the petitioners that they have done the work of beautification and/or landscaping. As we have already held that the default is on the part of the MSRDC, we sincerely hope that if representations are made by the petitioners, the same will be sympathetically considered taking into consideration the alleged loss which the petitioners are likely to suffer. It is true that there is some material on record to show that some other agency has been granted a contract to beautify the space under the flyovers. However, the petitioners are still in possession. We hope that the MSRDC can still find a way out to avoid burden of paying compensation, if any, to the contractors. Payment of compensation will ultimately affect the public exchequer. 28. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER: (A) Writ Petitions are rejected; (B) We expressly keep open the remedy of the petitioners of filing appropriate proceedings for recovery of compensation/ damages; (C) We, however, make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on the entitlement of the petitioners to seek compensation/ damages; (D) We direct the Chief Secretary of the State Government to nominate any senior IAS officer to hold a fact finding inquiry into the defaults committed by the MSRDC and dereliction in duty on the part of the officers of the MSRDC in the light of observations made in this judgment. The Chief Secretary shall nominate an appropriate officer within a period of two weeks from the date on which this judgment and order is uploaded on the High Court website. The Chief Secretary shall nominate an appropriate officer within a period of two weeks from the date on which this judgment and order is uploaded on the High Court website. The officer so appointed after holding a fact finding inquiry shall submit a report to the State Government within a period of three months from the date on which he is appointed; (E) After receipt of the report, the State Government will take appropriate decision on the basis of the said report and initiate action in accordance with law. It is obvious that the officer concerned will ascertain the names of the officers who were responsible for executing the contracts in breach of the directions issued by the State Government. Responsibility shall to be fixed in respect of the inaction on the part of the officers of not taking action from July, 2009 on the basis of the directions issued by the State Government; (F) The State Government shall file compliance report before this Court on or before 10th December, 2013. For considering the compliance report, these petitions shall be placed on daily board of 16th December, 2013 under the caption of “directions”; (G) In the event, the representations are made by the petitioners to the MSRDC within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be decided within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of representation; (H) The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks continuation of ad-interim relief. We direct that for a period of six weeks from today, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed subject to condition that with effect from 29th June, 2013, the petitioners shall stop use of the space under the flyovers for parking of vehicles. If the petitioners fail to stop use of the space the flyovers on or before 29th June, 2013, the protection granted shall come to an end; (I) At this stage, an apprehension is expressed that the vehicles which are already parked under the flyovers may not be removed by the owners before 29th June, 2013. If that be so, the petitioners concerned shall give intimation to the concerned local police stations on 30th June, 2013. On receiving the intimation, the State Government shall ensure that local Police Station removes the vehicles parked the flyovers.