JUDGMENT 1. Parties were put to notice that the petition shall be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. We have heard the petitioner appearing in person and the learned Advocate General on the earlier dates. The petitioner by filing this PIL has invited the attention of the Court to various illegalities and irregularities committed by the State Government while allotting residential flats vesting in the State. The grievance is as regards the gross illegalities in allotments of fiats made under the discretionary quota of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. In case of various properties within the Urban Agglomerations, the State Government has exercised the powers under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "the ULC Act") of granting exemption to the vacant lands from the applicability of the Provisions of the ULC Act. Under the terms and conditions of the Schemes sanctioned under section 20, the persons who develop the exempted properties are required to place the State Government in possession of certain flats. The State Government issued Government Resolutions (for short "GRs") from time to time right from the year 1982 providing for the allotment of flats in the category of 10% quota of flats vesting in the State Government under the Schemes sanctioned under section 20 of the ULC Act. The quota of 10% was subsequently reduced to 5%. There are total 9 Urban Agglomerations in the State under the provisions of the ULC Act. The flats forming part of the 5% quota are situated within the 9 Urban Agglomerations in the State. Various GRs have been issued from time to time laying down the procedure for allotment of the flats in 5% discretionary quota of the Hon'ble Chief Ministers throughout the State. The last of such GRs was issued on 30th November, 2014. 2. The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority has been constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (for short "the said Act of 1976"). There is a power vesting under section 18 of the said Act of 1976 for establishing various Regional Housing Boards as specified in the said section. It is not in dispute that in exercise of powers under section 18 of the said Act of 1976, 7 Regional Housing Boards have been established by the State Government in the State. There is a power vesting under section 18 of the said Act of 1976 for establishing various Regional Housing Boards as specified in the said section. It is not in dispute that in exercise of powers under section 18 of the said Act of 1976, 7 Regional Housing Boards have been established by the State Government in the State. In exercise of powers under the said Act of 1976, Regulations have been framed under which 2% of the flats constructed by the Regional Boards are required to be surrendered to the Sate Government. The GRs to which we have made a reference in the earlier paragraph also deal with the allotment of the said 2% flats in addition to 5% quota under the ULC Act. For the sake of completion, we must record here that the 9 Urban Agglomerations are Mumbai, Thane, Ulhasnagar, Nasik, Solapur, Nagpur, Pune, Kolhapur and Sangli. The Housing and Area Development Boards constituted in exercise of powers under section 18 of the said Act of 1976 are as under:- S. No. Name of the Board Area of jurisdiction districts 1. The Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board (a) The City of Mumbai (b) The Mumbai Suburban 2. The Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board (a) Nagpur (b) Chandrapur (c) Gadchiroli (d) Bhandara (e) Wardha 3. The Aurangabad Housing and Area Development Board (a) Aurangabad (b) Jalna (c) Parbhani (d) Beed (e) Nanded (f) Osmanabad (g) Latur 4. The Pune Housing and Area Development Board (a) Pune (b) Satara (c) Sangli (d) Solapur (e) Kolhapur 5. Konkan Housing and Area Development Board (a) Thane (b) Raigad (c) Sindhudurg (d) Ratnagir 6. The Amravati Housing and Area Development Board (a) Amravati (b) Akola (c) Yavatmal (d) Buldhana 7. The Nashik Housing and Area Development Board (a) Nashik (b) Ahmednagar (c) Dhule (d) Jalgaon 3. Allotment of large number of flats out of 5% (earlier 10%) and 2% quota has been made from the year 1982 by the State Government/Hon'ble Chief Minister in exercise of powers under the various GRs issued from time to time including the last GR dated 30th November, 2011 to which we have made a reference. 4. It will be necessary to make a reference to the decision of this Court in the case of (Mr. Chandrabhan Sukhadeo Sangle vs. Urban Development Department and Others, (2014) 3 Bombay Cases Reporter 692. 4. It will be necessary to make a reference to the decision of this Court in the case of (Mr. Chandrabhan Sukhadeo Sangle vs. Urban Development Department and Others, (2014) 3 Bombay Cases Reporter 692. In the said decision, this Court has considered the Scheme under all the relevant GRs relating to allotment of flats out of 2% and 5% quota. This Court has in depth considered the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 30th November, 2011. This Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 29 . This Court also referred to several other decisions of the Apex Court and in paragraph 17, this Court held thus: "17. Thus, the principles which emerge from various decisions of the Apex Court can be summarized as under: (a) A property vesting in the State can be disposed of only on the basis of a fair and transparent policy. (b) The methods to be adopted for disposal of the public properties must be fair and transparent providing a fair opportunity to all the eligible/interested persons to participate in the process. (c) A policy of providing for allotment of the State owned properties on the basis of the Applications made by the individuals without a public advertisement or invitation by the State cannot be a rational policy. It cannot be a fair and transparent method. (d) Allotment of the properties vesting in the Government cannot be treated as a private venture. (e) While distributing the property vesting in the State, the Government cannot act at its pleasure. (f) In such matters, the Government must act without even a semblance of discrimination." 5. The findings have been recorded by this Court as regards the illegality of the said GRs in paragraph Nos. 18 onwards of the said decision. This Court came to the conclusion that the procedure adopted by the State Government for allotment of flats in 2% and 5% quotas which is provided in various GRs is not at all fair and transparent. It was held that said procedure is completely arbitrary. This Court held that the method of allotment shows that the State Government is treating the whole process of allotment of the flats vesting in it as a private venture. It was held that said procedure is completely arbitrary. This Court held that the method of allotment shows that the State Government is treating the whole process of allotment of the flats vesting in it as a private venture. The relevant findings recorded in paragraphs 19 and 21 of the said decision read thus: "19. No detailed reasons are required to be recorded for coming to the conclusion that not only that the procedure adopted by the State is not fair and transparent but the procedure adopted by the State is arbitrary. We are constrained to observe that the method of allotment adopted by the State Government shows that the State Government is treating the whole process as a private venture. 21. As we have observed earlier, in case of 15 out of every 50 flats available, there is absolute discretion vesting with the Hon'ble Chief Minister. A policy giving such an absolute discretion to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, in our opinion, makes the policy vulnerable and arbitrary which is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This is a separate and independent reason which we have recorded apart from our finding that the method is not fair and transparent." 6. This Court also noted that the flats allotted out of the 5% quota have been allotted at a concessional price which is much less than the market value of the flats. In substance, this Court has held that the entire exercise done by the State Government/Hon'ble Chief Minister of the allotment of the said flats is arbitrary which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Court also expressed a doubt in paragraph 25 as to whether flats vesting in the State Government could be allotted at the concessional rate without fixing any income criteria. This Court found that the Government Resolution dated 30th November, 2011 supersedes all the earlier GRs of the State dealing with the allotment of flats in 2% and 5% quota. This Court declared the GR dated 30th November, 2011 as arbitrary, irrational and illegal and, therefore, the State Government was restrained from making further allotments on the basis of the said GR. This Court clarified that this restraint will not apply to the allotment of the flats as service quarters. This Court declared the GR dated 30th November, 2011 as arbitrary, irrational and illegal and, therefore, the State Government was restrained from making further allotments on the basis of the said GR. This Court clarified that this restraint will not apply to the allotment of the flats as service quarters. This Court clarified that notwithstanding the said declaration, it will be open for the State Government to come out with a fair and transparent policy of the allotment of flats in 2% and 5% quota. We must record here that the learned Advocate General stated that the State Government has not challenged the decision of this Court in the case of Mr. Chandrabhan Sukhadeo Sangle. The learned Advocate General stated that in terms of the observations made by this Court, as of today, the State Government has not come out with a fresh policy for disposal of flats in 5% and 2% quota. The learned Advocate General 8 of 27 stated that about 418 available flats in 2% quota are not yet allotted and about 900 available flats in 5% quota are not yet allotted. 7. We have made extensive reference to the decision of this Court in the case of Mr. Chandrabhan Sukhadeo Sangle only with a view to point out the manner in which the policy was framed by the State Government in the form of various GRs. This Court has observed that flats under 5% and 2% quota constituted valuable property vesting in the State and the method adopted by the State for the disposal of the said valuable property is not a fair and transparent method. By the said judgment, this Court has not disturbed the allotments made till the date of the judgment. This Court has only restrained the State Government from acting upon the said GRs by making further allotments. The scope for adjudication in the present Public Interest Litigation is confined to the illegalities committed while allotting flats under 2% and 5% quota as per the relevant GRs. In this Public Interest Litigation, this Court will have to find out whether the allotments were made strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the various GRs. The scope for adjudication in the present Public Interest Litigation is confined to the illegalities committed while allotting flats under 2% and 5% quota as per the relevant GRs. In this Public Interest Litigation, this Court will have to find out whether the allotments were made strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the various GRs. A closer scrutiny is required to be made as the State Government has dealt with the valuable property vesting in it in the form of the flats situated in the major cities in the State. 8. Various categories of illegalities and irregularities in the process of allotment of the flats have been alleged. All the GRs which were issued prior to 30th November, 2011 are not placed on record. We are referring to the eligibility criteria fixed under the GR dated 30th November, 2011 only by way of illustration. The basic eligibility criteria provided in sub-clause (ii) of Clause (d) of the said GR is that the beneficiary of the allotment under the discretionary quota should not have obtained a house, a tenement or a residential flat under the various Schemes of the Government in the entire State. Another condition is that the beneficiary should not own a tenement, a residential flat or a plot on ownership basis in any of the 9 Urban Agglomerations under ULC Act, and within the jurisdiction of the Regional Housing Boards controlled by the MHADA. Another condition in sub-clause (iii) of Clause (d) is that the tenements under the discretionary quota shall be allotted to only one member of a family. The persons who apply for allotment of flats in the discretionary quota are required to file an affidavit incorporating a declaration that he is not holding a house, a tenement, a flat or a plot as stated above. It is provided that such affidavits shall be uploaded on the website of the Government of Maharashtra. The object seems to be that the general public can examine such affidavits and lodge objections with the Competent Authority. Though there are several affidavits filed by the State Government, none of the affidavits record that the affidavits filed by the applicants have been uploaded on the Government website. Further eligibility criteria fixed under the said GR is that the tenements under the discretionary quota shall be allotted only to one member of the family. Though there are several affidavits filed by the State Government, none of the affidavits record that the affidavits filed by the applicants have been uploaded on the Government website. Further eligibility criteria fixed under the said GR is that the tenements under the discretionary quota shall be allotted only to one member of the family. We must record here that the GR does not define the term family. We must also note that the GR records that apart from the aforesaid eligibility criteria, the other terms and conditions for eligibility have been specified in Appendix - A to the said GR. Clause 3 of the Appendix-A reads thus: "(3) The applicant and his family members (husband/wife and minor son/daughter) should not have obtained tenement/plot/residential flat at the concessional rate from Government Schemes (10%, 5%, 2%) and he must not be or his family member must not be the member of the co-operative society to whom land is made available by the Government at concessional rate." 9. We find that Clause 3 does not define the "family". Even the "family" contemplated by sub-clause (iii) of Clause (d) of the eligibility criteria laid down in the GR dated 30th November, 2011 is not defined. Clause 3 of the Appendix provides for a condition of eligibility that the applicant and his family members (spouse and minor son/daughter) should not have obtained tenement/plot/residential flat at a concessional rate from the Government under its various Schemes and the applicant or his/her family members should not be the members of a co-operative society to which a land is made available by the Government at a concessional rate. Form of affidavit which is required to be filed in terms of the eligibility criteria prescribed by the said GR is also incorporated in Appendix - A. The said prescribed form of affidavit reads thus: "(III) Prescribed form of the Affidavit: (Affidavit in the prescribed form on Stamp Paper of Rs. 100/- wherein the full name, age, address should be mentioned. (1) In my name, in the names of my wife/husband and in the name of minor children, in Maharashtra State, do not have any tenement/residential flat/plot allotted under any Scheme of grant of concession or I, My Wife/husband are not the members of any Co-operative Housing Society built on the land allotted at concessional rate by any Government Department. (1) In my name, in the names of my wife/husband and in the name of minor children, in Maharashtra State, do not have any tenement/residential flat/plot allotted under any Scheme of grant of concession or I, My Wife/husband are not the members of any Co-operative Housing Society built on the land allotted at concessional rate by any Government Department. (2) In my name, in the name of my wife/husband and in the name of my minor children under the provisions of ULC, in the State in the 9 Urban Agglomerations and within the jurisdiction MHADA Authority in 7 Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Boards, I do not have of my ownership any House/Flat/Residential Tenement/Plot. (3) Further before this, in building constructed on the plot allotted by the Government or MHADA, I, My Wife/husband or the minor children have not obtained the flat and have not got it transferred in my name or in the name of my wife/husband or in the name of minor children." 10. The issue raised in this petition is as regards the several illegalities committed while allotting the flats in 2% and 5% discretionary quota. Various instances of the alleged gross illegalities have been set out in the petition and in the further affidavits of the petitioner. 11. We must note here that in the various affidavits filed on behalf of the State Government in compliance with orders passed by this Court from time to time, number of instances of illegal allotments have been set out. These affidavits to a great extent support the case made out by the petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation. It will be necessary to make a reference to various affidavits filed on behalf of the State Government. Time to time, this Court passed orders directing the State Government to disclose various facts. Firstly, we may make useful reference to the affidavit dated 21st December, 2014 of Shri Shriram D. Yadav, the Under Secretary of the Urban Development Department which refers to the order dated 10th April, 2012 of this Court. It discloses the manner in which the allotment of various residential tenements has been made on the ground of "acute need of accommodation". It discloses the manner in which the allotment of various residential tenements has been made on the ground of "acute need of accommodation". As we propose to pass an order with the consent of the State Government of appointing a retired Judge of this Court to look into the cases of each individual allotment, we are not referring in detail to various cases of illegality and irregularity set out in the affidavits. On Clause (a) of paragraph 13 of the said affidavit, a case is pointed out where the husband was allotted a flat in Mumbai in discretionary quota under the "acute need of accommodation" category. This allotment was made in the year 2001. His wife was made allotment of another flat in Mumbai in the year 2007 under the same category. It is recorded that the wife had suppressed the fact of the allotment of a flat to her husband and in fact a false statement was made by her on affidavit. Another instance is pointed out in Clause (b) of the same paragraph which is of a person who was allotted a flat in the year 1994 under the discretionary quota in the category of "Artists". After obtaining permission, the allottee sold the said tenement in the year 2005. However, in the year 2007, she obtained an allotment of another flat under "acute need of accommodation" category in a different name. In the first case which we have pointed out earlier, it is stated in the affidavit that a First Information Report was registered. In the second case, it is stated that the allotment of the flat is cancelled but there is no reference to registration of an offence. Considering the Scheme of the G.Rs, it is obvious that if a person obtains an allotment of a flat in discretionary quota and sells or transfers the same, he is disentitled to obtain an allotment of a flat under the 2% or 5% quota subsequently. The third case is set out in paragraph 13 of the said affidavit where the allottee obtained an allotment of a flat in the year 2007 under the "acute need of accommodation" category. Subsequently, it was revealed that she was having a flat on ownership basis in Mumbai. In this case, it is stated that a show cause notice has been issued to the allottee. Subsequently, it was revealed that she was having a flat on ownership basis in Mumbai. In this case, it is stated that a show cause notice has been issued to the allottee. These are not the only cases which are brought on record showing gross illegality. We must make a reference to the other affidavits on record. 12. There is an affidavit filed by Shri S.K. Salimath dated 20th January, 2014 to which Exhibit 1 is a chart. In paragraph 6, it is stated that after validation of data base and the verification of the original files, 14 cases have been identified where the same person or his or her spouse have been allotted more than one tenement in 5% discretionary quota. It is further pointed out that after the scrutiny of the record, it was revealed that the were 101 cases where blood relatives have been found to be allottees of flats either in the same Urban Agglomeration or in another Urban agglomeration. In paragraph 8, it is pointed out that cases of 10 persons have come to the fore who have been allotted the tenements in 2% quota as well as 5% quota. These affidavits on record contain only few illustrative cases which justify the contention raised by the petitioner that there appear to be illegalities and irregularities as regards the allotment of flats under the discretionary quota of 2% and 5%. We have already referred to various decisions of the Apex Court. We are dealing with the valuable properties vesting in the State and the manner in which the properties have been disposed of. This Court cannot become a silent spectator when there is a strong prima facie case made out in this Public Interest Litigation. The Persons who are the beneficiaries of illegal allotments of valuable public properties cannot be allowed to enjoy the benefits of illegality. The possession of the public properties which are illegally allotted will have to be recovered so that the public property remains in the custody of the State. Moreover, if the allotments have been obtained by the beneficiaries either by making false declarations or by suppressing material facts, criminal law will have to be set in motion against the wrongdoers. The possession of the public properties which are illegally allotted will have to be recovered so that the public property remains in the custody of the State. Moreover, if the allotments have been obtained by the beneficiaries either by making false declarations or by suppressing material facts, criminal law will have to be set in motion against the wrongdoers. We must observe here that the State Government has done nothing in the matter and only after directions were issued by this Court from time to time that the verification of records has been made to some extent. 13. It was necessary for the State to carry out a very detailed exercise of verification of the records for identifying the cases of illegal and improper allotments of flats under 2% and 5% discretionary quota. The State should have examined each and every application made for allotment of flats under the said quotas. It was necessary for the State to ascertain whether all supporting documents were furnished and whether the affidavits as contemplated were furnished. The affidavits are very crucial in which the applicant is required to set out that neither he himself nor any member of his family are the beneficiaries of the allotment of the discretionary quotas and that they are not holding flats or plots of lands or houses in the areas of Urban Agglomerations or within the jurisdiction of Regional Housing Boards. It was necessary for the State to ascertain whether an allottee or a member of his/her family who is allotted a flat in 5% Scheme has taken benefits of 2% Scheme and vice versa. It was necessary for the State to ascertain whether an allottee of a flat in 5% Scheme or his family member has taken the benefit of the same quota by obtaining an allotment of another flat in the same or some other Urban Agglomeration. Same is the case with the allotment of flats in 2% quota. There may be cases of making false statements in the affidavits or suppression of material facts in the affidavits. There may be cases where either there are no affidavits or the same are defective. We referring to some instances of illegalities only by way of illustration. The extent and the nature of illegalities can be ascertained only after a detailed scrutiny of the records. There may be cases where either there are no affidavits or the same are defective. We referring to some instances of illegalities only by way of illustration. The extent and the nature of illegalities can be ascertained only after a detailed scrutiny of the records. As the procedure for allotment of flats in the said quotas is not transparent and as the information regarding the allotments is not available on public domain, there is no way by which a citizen can ascertain the extent of illegalities in the matter of allotments. There is an element of secrecy attached to the manner in which allotments have been made. The petition is pending in this Court for a considerably long time. There are orders passed by this Court from time to time issuing directions to the State Government. We have already made a reference to the said order including the order dated 10th April, 2012. It appears to us that though some steps have been taken by the State Government for finding out the cases of illegal allotments, the detailed exercise which ought to have been done has not been done. Even in the identified cases of illegality in the allotments, it appears to us that the arms of the State are moving very slowly. In some cases, only First Information Report has been registered. In some cases, allotment of one of the two flats has been cancelled. There is nothing on record to show that after cancellation of the allotment, the flats have been repossessed. 14. We, therefore, suggested to the learned Advocate General that an independent exhaustive exercise needs to be done to ascertain illegalities and irregularities in the matter of allotment of flats in 2% and 5% quota. The learned Advocate General, on instructions, was fair enough to state that this Court should appoint a retired Judge of this Court to inquire into the allotments made under the discretionary quota. He assured the Court that the State will make all arrangements for making available the entire record of the allotments. The learned Advocate General, on instructions, was fair enough to state that this Court should appoint a retired Judge of this Court to inquire into the allotments made under the discretionary quota. He assured the Court that the State will make all arrangements for making available the entire record of the allotments. He also assured us that the State will make available services of the Additional Collector, ULC, Mumbai and an officer of the level of the Chief Officer of MHADA (a post which is equivalent to the post of Additional Collector) to work with the learned Judge appointed by this Court and all the necessary facilities shall be provided by the State Government to the Judge so nominated by this Court. 15. There are various prayers made in the petition as well as pending applications such as issuing a direction for setting the criminal law in motion against those who are the beneficiaries of the illegal allotments. All the prayers will have to be considered in the light of the report which may be submitted by the retired learned Judge of this Court who will be appointed under this order. Some cases of illegal allotments have already been identified. The other cases of illegalities will have to be identified after perusal of the entire record of the allotments. This exercise will have to be done by the learned Judge appointed by this Court with the assistance of the officers nominated by the State Government to assist the learned Judge. All kinds of illegalities will have to be identified. The learned Judge appointed by this Court will have to make recommendations regarding the actions which should be taken by the State Government in respect of the illegal allotments including the action of setting the criminal law in motion and the action of repossessing the illegally allotted flats. We must record here that there is some dispute regarding the definition of "family". To ensure that there is an exhaustive inquiry, the learned Judge appointed by this Court will have to make an inquiry regarding allotments made to the dependent parents, major and minor children of the allottees and the spouses of the allottees. The issue regarding the interpretation of the word "family" will be gone into while passing a final order on the basis of the Report. The issue regarding the interpretation of the word "family" will be gone into while passing a final order on the basis of the Report. According to the case of the State Government, the word "family" includes only the spouse and minor children of the allottee. As the learned Advocate General has pointed out that large number of flats under the 5% and 2% quota are yet to be allotted and as more flats are likely to become available in future, the learned Judge appointed by this Court may make concrete suggestions about the manner in which a fair and transparent process can be adopted for allotment of the flats under the said quota. 16. The learned Judge who is appointed under the orders of this Court will have to make an independent inquiry. However, we permit the petitioner to produce all the relevant material in his possession before the learned Judge so that the said material can be examined by the learned Judge. The material which is already placed on record shall be also produced by the petitioner before the learned Judge. 17. Consent of three retired learned Judges was to be ascertained by the Registrar General. The Hon'ble Shri Justice J.A. Patil (a retired Judge of this Court) has consented to accept the appointment. Therefore, we propose to appoint him. Accordingly, we pass the following order: ORDER (i) We hereby appoint Hon'ble Shri Justice J.A. Patil, a Retired Judge of this Court to inquire into the allotments made under the discretionary quota of the State Government/Chief Minister of the State Government under the Schemes which are popularly known as 2% Scheme and 5% (10%) Scheme. (ii) We direct the State Government to make available all relevant records to the learned Judge including the details of all the allotments made right from the year 1982 under 5% (10%) discretionary quota in relation to all 9 Urban Agglomerations in the State and in relation to areas falling within the jurisdiction 7 Regional Housing Boards in the State. The applications made by the all such allottees in case of each allotment as well as the orders passed on the applications shall be made available to the learned Judge. The documents produced along with the applications made by the allottees will be made available to the learned Judge. The applications made by the all such allottees in case of each allotment as well as the orders passed on the applications shall be made available to the learned Judge. The documents produced along with the applications made by the allottees will be made available to the learned Judge. The State Government shall also make available true copies of all the relevant Government Resolutions dealing with the allotments. The State Government will be under an obligation to provide such additional information and documents as may be requisitioned by the learned Judge or by the officers nominated by the State Government to assist the learned Judge. (iii) It will be open for the petitioner to submit all the documents in his custody in relation to the alleged illegal allotments before the learned Judge after 1st December, 2014 but before the date fixed by the learned Judge. As regards the mode and manner of inquiry, we leave the matter to the discretion of the learned Judge. He may, if he finds it necessary, issue notices to the concerned persons for recording their statements. (iv) We direct the State Government to make available the services the Additional Collector (ULC), Mumbai and an officer of the level of Chief Officer of MHADA who shall assist the learned Judge in the work of collection of data and analysis of the data. The officers so nominated by the State Government shall work under the orders of the learned Judge. Adequate funds shall be made available at the disposal of the said two officers for meeting the day today expenditure of the inquiry. (v) The State Government shall provide separate secretarial and other staff including minimum two Stenographers to the learned Judge on full time basis. The State Government shall provide a fully furnished air-conditioned office premises having all the amenities such as Computers, Printers, scanners, facility of Internet, Telephones, etc., either in Mumbai or at Pune as per the convenience of the learned Judge. The State Government shall provide the infrastructure including an air-conditioned staff car to the learned Judge. The process of providing the entire infrastructure including the office premises, staff and the officers as stated above shall be completed by the State Government on or before 30th November, 2014. If necessary, the State Government shall issue necessary Government Resolution. The State Government shall provide the infrastructure including an air-conditioned staff car to the learned Judge. The process of providing the entire infrastructure including the office premises, staff and the officers as stated above shall be completed by the State Government on or before 30th November, 2014. If necessary, the State Government shall issue necessary Government Resolution. (vi) The State Government shall ensure that all the facilities and complete infrastructure are in place by 30th November, 2014 so that the learned Judge can start working from 1st December, 2014. In the event, the learned Judge is of the view that infrastructure provided to him is not adequate or the time granted to him to submit the report is insufficient, he will bring it to the notice of the Registrar General of this Court by instructing the officers appointed to assist him to submit a report to this Court. In the event, such a report is received, the Registrar General shall forthwith place the report before the appropriate Court for appropriate directions. (vii) The learned Judge shall ascertain after perusal of the entire record and the data made available to him all the illegalities or irregularities associated with the allotments of flats under the 5% (10%) and 2% quota. We request the learned Judge to make detailed recommendations as regards the actions to be taken in respect of the allotments which are found to be illegal. The recommendations will be also as regards the action to be taken against the beneficiaries as well as the action of taking over the possession of the flats illegally allotted. We request the learned judge to make recommendations regarding the manner in which a fair and transparent process can be adopted for allotment of the flats under 5% and 2% quota. (viii) We request the learned Judge to submit a detailed report containing the particulars of the illegal allotments as well as his recommendations on or before 30th April, 2015. (ix) We direct that the State Government shall pay to the learned Judge the amount equivalent to the salary payable to the Judges of this Court which shall include allowances and perquisites available to the Judges of this Court for the period from 1st December, 2014 till 30th April, 2015 or till such date as may be fixed by this Court. (x) We make it clear that notwithstanding this order, the State Government shall take all possible steps as regards the illegal allotments which have already been noticed. The action will include not only the cancellation of allotments but the steps taken to repossess the flats as also setting criminal law in motion. (xi) We make it clear that notwithstanding the above order, it will be open for the beneficiaries of the illegal allotments to voluntarily come forward and to surrender the flats allotted to them. If such surrender is offered to be made, the State Government shall accept the same without prejudice to the right of taking action in accordance with law. (xii) Place the PIL before the Court on 2nd December 2014 for reporting compliance. The Compliance with all the above directions shall be made by the Urban development Department. (xiii) Place the PIL before the appropriate Court on 5th May, 2015 for passing further orders and for considering the report of the learned Judge. (xiv) The Registrar (Judicial II) shall personally communicate this order to the Hon'ble Shri Justice J.A. Patil. He shall render all possible assistance to the learned Judge. (xv) We direct the office of the Public Prosecutor as well as the petitioner to serve an authenticated copy of this order to the Principle Secretary of the Urban Development Department who shall immediately act upon the same. The copy shall be served on or before 1st November 2014.