JUDGMENT : R. Subhash Reddy, J. 1. This Special Civil Application is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by seeking the prayers, relevant of which reads as under: "A. That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate, writ order or direction (i) restraining GIDC from making any fresh allotment of land within GIDC Industrial Estate, Naroda, including those that are advertised in Sandesh dated 10.08.2011, by leasing, selling, allotting or transferring in any manner by themselves or through their employees, servants or agents; (ii) quashing and setting aside the decision and action of respondent No. 2 Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation of putting to auction plots mentioned in advertisement dated 10.08.2011 published in Sandesh situated at Naroda Industrial Estate and quashing and setting aside the notice inviting tenders so published; (iii) commanding GIDC not to fell trees, plants an saplings or cause felling of trees, plants and saplings standing on Naroda Industrial Estate and to use open plots for tree plantation; 2. There are 10 petitioners in the present petition, wherein petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 claim to be individual residents of the plots situated in Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) Estate at Naroda. Petitioner No. 8 is a trust which runs a school which is stated to be adjacent to plot No. 313 and imparts education to approximately 1300 students from Jr. KG to Standard X. Petitioner No. 9 is Naroda Utilities Services (hereafter to be referred to as "NUS"), which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is the case of the petitioner that NUS undertakes the work of development and maintenance of infrastructure for Naroda Industrial Estate like plantation of trees, maintenance of green space, storm water drainage, roads, cleanliness etc. Petitioner No. 10 is an association of the Industries established at GIDC Estate at Naroda. 3. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that, respondent No. 2-Corporation is trying to sell certain left-over plots in the GIDC Estate, which were already left in the Estate for the purpose of greenery and trees. Naroda Industrial Estate is spread over an area of 357 hectares, that is, 35,70,000 sq. mts. 3. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that, respondent No. 2-Corporation is trying to sell certain left-over plots in the GIDC Estate, which were already left in the Estate for the purpose of greenery and trees. Naroda Industrial Estate is spread over an area of 357 hectares, that is, 35,70,000 sq. mts. The same was acquired by the GIDC in the early 1960s and was allotted to various industrial units initially by invitation and later on by inviting bids through public auction. The said industrial estate is a saturated estate with fully developed infrastructure. Plots were allotted initially by GIDC on lease of 99 years, but the policy of the GIDC permits conversion of leasehold rights to freehold rights again on payment of premium/fees to GIDC. Thus, many industrial units have taken the benefit of such policy of the GIDC and therefore, such plots in the Industrial Estate are in great demand, thus, the GIDC continues to earn on account of fees charged by it on transfer of leasehold rights and on conversion of leasehold rights to freehold rights. 3.1. It is the allegation of the petitioners that as such, GIDC Estate, Naroda was largely a chemical industrial estate and it was of great importance to maintain a pollution free environment and ecological balance. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent Corporation had initially earmarked certain plots for plantation of trees, for creation and maintenance of infrastructure like laying various pipelines, storm water drainage etc., for creation of parks and for other purposes such as schools, playground, etc known as green space, utility corridors, PP plots. It is alleged that many of such areas which are earmarked for various purposes were either leased or sold to various industrial units. Reference is made in the petition to the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pravinbhai Jashbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and ors, reported in 1995(2) GLR 1210 , under which it is directed to the State to direct the GIDC to make the areas inside and surrounding the industrial units more green by plantation on open plots. In furtherance of such objective to improve the greenery in the industrial area, the 2nd respondent-Corporation approached the respondent No. 10-Naroda Industries Association ("NIA" for short) for tree plantation in the industrial estate. The respondent No. 2 GIDC proposed to pay Rs. In furtherance of such objective to improve the greenery in the industrial area, the 2nd respondent-Corporation approached the respondent No. 10-Naroda Industries Association ("NIA" for short) for tree plantation in the industrial estate. The respondent No. 2 GIDC proposed to pay Rs. 25/- per plant to NIA by way of financial assistance for the tree plantation and proposed to plant approximately 10000 trees initially. In response to the same, the NIA took up the responsibility and gradually planted trees on the land bearing plot Nos. 313, 506, H3 and H4. The NIA sanctioned such payment of Rs. 25/- per tree and released the said amount in tranches and after verification on site that the trees planted had survived. It is alleged that the NIA continued to work actively with GIDC for forestation project at Naroda Industrial Estate and by 2001, 23000 plants were planted by NIA. Reference is made to the Memorandum of Understanding entered by the GIDC with NUS pertaining to development and maintenance of garden and tree plantation and landscaping on the land mentioned in the Schedule on behalf of the GIDC. Certain letters were addressed by the petitioners objecting to the move of the respondents to cut the trees and also for converting the area covered by greenery into plots for the purpose of leasing and selling. Reference is also made to the MOU dated 18.2.2010 entered into between the NIA and the Range Forest Officer, Ahmedabad City for establishing the Nursery on plot No. 450. As per the MOU, the Nursery has come up on plot No. 450 which will cater approximately 2 Lac plants per year. 3.2. It is the case of the petitioners that concerned with the tree plantation for maintaining ecological balance and environmental protection in the industrial area, the grievance of the petitioners is that contrary to policy decision taken by the GIDC of undertaking massive tree plantation, all of a sudden, the GIDC issued an advertisement dated 10th August, 2011 published in Sandesh newspaper, to put certain plots to auction which included plot Nos. 313/2, 313/3, 313/10, 313/12, 313/14, 313/15, 313/16 and 313/17 which are subplots of plot No. 313. Plot No. 313 is designated as playground in the map of GIDC and the same is situated adjacent to the premises of the school managed by the respondent No. 8. 313/2, 313/3, 313/10, 313/12, 313/14, 313/15, 313/16 and 313/17 which are subplots of plot No. 313. Plot No. 313 is designated as playground in the map of GIDC and the same is situated adjacent to the premises of the school managed by the respondent No. 8. The said land is closely situated near the residential complex developed by GIDC which has 900 flats. It is alleged that since 1994, NIA and NUS have been planting trees in the said land and the said land is covered under the MOU signed between the NUS and the GIDC and the trees standing thereon are almost 15 years old. It is the grievance of the petitioners that if such plots are allowed to be sold or leased to industries, it will create pollution and result into ecological imbalance and will also result in denial of fundamental rights of the petitioners who are residing within the industrial area in the residential complex developed for the purpose of residents of the industrial area. 3.3. It is alleged that the advertisement, dated 10th August, 2011 published in Sandesh newspaper to auction the plots in question is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the policy prepared by respondent No. 2 Corporation. It is case of the petitioners that having earmarked certain land as green space, utility corridor, PP plots etc, it is not open for respondent No. 2 Corporation to sell such land which is available for protection and maintenance of the necessary green cover. It is the case of the petitioners that the present industrial estate is a saturated estate and therefore, there is no scope for further industrialization. It is also alleged that GIDC being a State is required to make endeavors to protect and improve the environment. 4. Divisional Manager of the 2nd respondent Corporation has filed affidavit-in-reply. While denying various allegations made by the petitioners in the petition, it is stated that the petition is filed with totally distorted and incomplete facts. It is also alleged that GIDC being a State is required to make endeavors to protect and improve the environment. 4. Divisional Manager of the 2nd respondent Corporation has filed affidavit-in-reply. While denying various allegations made by the petitioners in the petition, it is stated that the petition is filed with totally distorted and incomplete facts. While referring to the MOU signed by the respondent No.2 Corporation with petitioner No. 9, dated 28.11.2008, it is stated in the affidavit that the Corporation has no intention to breach any of the terms of the MOU made on 28th November, 2008 and the Corporation will auction only those plots which have been earmarked as commercial/industrial and no plots which have been earmarked for green zone as per the MOU shall be auctioned. 4.1. With reference to the allegation of the petitioners that such action would damage the ecology of the industrial area, it is stated that the Corporation intends to give plots only to engineering units which do not discharge any effluent. The Corporation intends to take all necessary permissions from the Forest Department before cutting trees from the plots which are sought to be auctioned and further undertakes to plant 20000 trees. With reference to the allegation of the petitioners regarding nursery on plot No. 450 of the estate, it is submitted that the said plot No. 450 is reserved for commercial activity and the petitioners have directly entered into an agreement with the Forest Department without taking any permission from the respondent No. 2 Corporation and thereby have encroached upon the land belonging to the Corporation. It is stated that it is plot No. H/6A which has been reserved for nursery and not plot No. 450 and the present petitioner association only with a view to encroach the land on plot No. 450 has started nursery on the said plot which was not earmarked for plantation. On the allegation of the petitioners that proposed plots which are sought to be sold are situated nearby the school and playground and also residential locality, it is averred that it is only for such reason that the Corporation has decided to give such plots only to those engineering units which do not discharge effluent and create minimum pollution. On the allegation of the petitioners that proposed plots which are sought to be sold are situated nearby the school and playground and also residential locality, it is averred that it is only for such reason that the Corporation has decided to give such plots only to those engineering units which do not discharge effluent and create minimum pollution. It is further stated in the affidavit in reply that the Corporation will plant 20000 trees in the industrial estate to compensate any loss of trees and the Corporation has allotted 10 Hectares of land for green space, and as per the current policy, the Corporation shall not give land to the polluting industries and shall give the land in question only to the engineering units which have zero pollution potential. It is further stated that the Corporation has already spent substantial amount of money to make the industrial estate green. 4.2. In addition to the above pleas in the affidavit in reply, the respondent No. 2 Corporation has answered the allegations made by the petitioners para wise, inter alia stating that all the plots mentioned in the advertisement in question have been earmarked as industrial/commercial plots; there are still certain plots which have not been allotted in this estate; only 7 subplots of plot No. 313 out of 25 plots had been earmarked for plantation as per the MOU with respondent No. 9 and the Corporation has no intention to declare 7 plots in question as permanently green plantation as the MOU itself was only for five years; substantial efforts have been made to control the pollution in the estate and no chemical or any other kind of polluting industries would be allotted the plots. On the claim of petitioner No. 9 that it is working for development and maintenance of infrastructure like plantation of trees, maintenance of green space, storm water drain, roads, cleanliness, it is stated that it is not entirely true as the entire estate falls within the limits of the Corporation and the Corporation too has been maintaining roads, streetlights and drainage since 14.5.1989, and the school is at a distance of 150 meters from the plots in question, that is, plot No. 313. It is averred that the estate had mixture of textile, engineering, rolling mills, foundries, ceramic industries etc. It is averred that the estate had mixture of textile, engineering, rolling mills, foundries, ceramic industries etc. Out of 1300 units, approximately 210 units are engaged in chemical products and the petitioner No. 9 has entered into an agreement with the Forest Department for safety of nursery on the land belonging to the respondent No. 2 Corporation without taking any kind of permission. It is specifically pleaded that direction given by this Court in the judgment in the case of Pravinbhai Jashbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and ors, reported in 1995 (2) GLR 1210 have been complied with and accordingly plantation is being done by the respondent No. 2 Corporation. It is stated that the MOU dated 28th November, 2008 was in furtherance of the principal objective of the Corporation to preserve the ecological balance in the industrial estate. The Corporation has made payment of Rs. 25/- per plant to petitioner No. 9 and as per the MOU, the said petitioner was required to effect plantation as shown in the location shown in the map annexed with the MOU. However, it is tried to encroach upon the land of the respondent No. 2 Corporation by systematically planting in the area which is not earmarked as plantation site. While referring to various payments made by the respondent No. 2 Corporation, it is averred that that itself shows that the Corporation is quite serious about maintaining the ecology of the entire industrial estate. As regards the allegation of petitioner No. 9 opposing the proposal of the Corporation for auctioning the industrial plots under the pretext of preserving the environment, it is pleaded that as the land is vested with the Corporation, the Corporation is the lawful authority for allotting the plots. It is specifically pleaded that only those plots which were earmarked for industrial/commercial purpose were advertised in the advertisement issued by the Corporation. While referring to the agreement annexed by the petitioner at Annexure- Q entered into between petitioner No. 9 and the Forest Department, it is stated that such agreement is illegal and will not confer any right upon the said petitioner. It is pleaded that substantial amount of land has been marked as green zone by the respondent No. 2 Corporation and the auctioning of plots in dispute will not have any effect on the ecological balance of the area. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. It is pleaded that substantial amount of land has been marked as green zone by the respondent No. 2 Corporation and the auctioning of plots in dispute will not have any effect on the ecological balance of the area. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. On behalf of respondent No. 1, separate affidavit in reply is filed. While referring to various claims made by the petitioners in the petition, it is stated that plot No. 450 was given by Naroda Industrial Estate to Range Forest Officer, Ahmedabad City, Range Hansol, vide agreement dated 18.2.2010 exclusively for raising nursery as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement. By the said agreement dated 18.2.2010, plot No. 450 was given to the Range Forest Officer and the same was used by the State Government for Forest Department only for the purpose of raising nursery. Thus, denying the allegations of encroachment, it is stated that the State Government has not encroached upon the said land in any manner whatsoever. 6. Rejoinder is filed on behalf of the petitioners. In the rejoinder, it is stated that even to the engineering units, plots in question cannot be sold as the engineering units also have discharge of oil and grease and hammering would cause severe noise pollution and the green space and green cover which is already below the required levels will diminish further. It is pleaded that there is no justification for cutting trees already planted and maintained by petitioner No. 9. It is alleged that further plantation of 20000 trees is made without putting forth any specific plan without considering future cost which would also be borne by the petitioners and without consideration of the fact that substantial public money has already been spent in the plantation of the trees that are presently standing in the Estate. The respondent No. 2 Corporation has failed to justify the impugned action of putting plots in question to auction in Naroda Industrial Estate. 6.1. With reference to allegation regarding raising nursery on plot No. 450, it is stated that the respondent Corporation has never raised any objection to nursery being run on plot No. 450 till auction notice is issued and the Corporation has never before stated that plot No. H/6A was reserved for nursery. 6.1. With reference to allegation regarding raising nursery on plot No. 450, it is stated that the respondent Corporation has never raised any objection to nursery being run on plot No. 450 till auction notice is issued and the Corporation has never before stated that plot No. H/6A was reserved for nursery. Further reiterating their stand that Naroda Industrial Estate is already a saturated estate and it does not have sufficient open spaces and that too green spaces, it is stated that as such, the plots in question cannot be sold. 7. Additional affidavit in addition to the affidavit in rejoinder is filed on behalf of the petitioners disputing the averments made in the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No. 2 stating that none of the portion of land of utility corridors, PP plots, green space have been allotted or sold. It is pleaded that many of the areas marked as utility corridors, green spaces and/or PP plots have been sold for commercial or industrial purposes. 8. Even on behalf of the respondent, additional affidavit is filed responding to the queries put forth in the order dated 15.9.2015. 9. Heard Ms. Megha Jani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 State and Mr. R.R. Marshall, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Rituraj Meena, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2-GIDC. 10. Ms. Jani has taken us through the pleadings on record and other material in support of her plea that Naroda Industrial Estate is a saturated estate and no more plots can be allowed to be sold for the purpose of industrial activity. It is contended that the impugned notice for auction of the plots in question is contrary to the MOU entered into by the GIDC with the petitioner No. 9 and if auction is allowed to be held, it will damage the ecology of the industrial estate as much as the Corporation intends to cut trees on the plots intended to be auctioned. It is also submitted that the Corporation also intends to remove the nursery which was raised by the petitioners in plot No. 450. It is also submitted that the Corporation also intends to remove the nursery which was raised by the petitioners in plot No. 450. The plots sought to be auctioned are situated near school playground and residential locality and if industrial units come up on the plots which are sought to be sold, it will be detrimental to the interests of the school-going children and residents of the locality. 11. On the other hand, Mr. R.R. Marshal, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Rituraj Meena on behalf of respondent No. 2-GIDC submitted that there is no legal basis for claim of the petitioners for seeking reliefs as prayed for in the petition. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 Corporation is already maintaining nursery in the industrial estate and no rights are conferred on the petitioners pursuant to the MOU entered between the GIDC and the petitioner No. 9 on 28.11.2008. It is also submitted that respondent No. 2 Corporation intends to auction only those plots which are earmarked as commercial/industrial and no plots which have been earmarked for green zone as per the MOU shall be auctioned. The Corporation intends to give plots only to those engineering units which do not have any effluent discharge. The Corporation also intends to take all necessary permissions from the Forest Department before cutting trees from the plots which are sought to be auctioned. As the respondent No. 2 Corporation itself is spending substantial amount for development of greenery and intends to plant 20000 more trees, no allegation can be maintained that the sale of the plots in question will result in pollution in the industrial estate. So far as plot No. 450 is concerned, it is illegally (encroached by the petitioners by raising nursery there as the same was not earmarked for plantation. Without taking permission from the GIDC, the petitioner No. 10 entered into an agreement with the Forest Department on their own and have started nursery though separate plot bearing H/6A has been reserved for nursery. Without taking permission from the GIDC, the petitioner No. 10 entered into an agreement with the Forest Department on their own and have started nursery though separate plot bearing H/6A has been reserved for nursery. While disputing the distance between the plots which are sought to be sold and the existing school, playground and residential locality, it is submitted that keeping in mind the distance of nearby school and residential plots from the plots which are sought to be sold that the Corporation intends to allot the plots to the engineering units and not to any other units which discharge effluent which will result into pollution. 12. Reference is made by the petitioners in the petition to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Pravinbhai Jashbhai Patel and Anr. v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1995 (2) GLR 1210 . The aforesaid writ-petition was filed by way of Public Interest Litigation complaining large-scale pollution to Kharicut Canal and the areas in the immediate vicinity thereof by some industrial units within the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation limits and inaction on the part of the Govt. authorities in taking any effective steps to control it. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court considered at length the allegations of pollution in the industrial estates and issued series of directions by considering various provisions under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. While pointing out the apathy shown by the governmental authorities in not taking action against the polluting industries, directions were given to discharge their obligations and the units which were not fulfilling the requirements under the pollution control laws referred above were ordered to be closed pending fulfillment of legal obligations. 13. It is true that even the pollution caused in Naroda Industrial Estate was considered in the aforesaid judgment, but we are of the view that the directions issued in the said judgment will have no direct impact on the issues which have fallen for consideration in the present case. The scope of the present petition is confined to the action of the GIDC for issuance of an advertisement which was published in Sandesh newspaper, for sale of certain plots in the Naroda industrial estate. The scope of the present petition is confined to the action of the GIDC for issuance of an advertisement which was published in Sandesh newspaper, for sale of certain plots in the Naroda industrial estate. It is the case of the petitioners that at the instance of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, 9th petitioner as well as the Naroda Industries Association-10th petitioner, have taken several steps for improving the greenery and plantation of trees and contrary to such assurances in the MOU, the respondent authorities are taking steps to sell the plots in question. 14. It is the case of the petitioners that the plots which are likely to be auctioned under the impugned notice is in violation of MOU signed by the petitioner No. 9 with the GIDC entered into on 28.11.2008, copy of which is also placed on record. On perusal of such MOU, it is clear that GIDC has entered into an MOU with petitioner No. 9 which is called Green Society, on 28.11.2008 for the purpose of undertaking the work pertaining to development and maintenance of gardens/tree plantation/landscaping etc. The said MOU was in force for a period of five years from the date of signing. As per the terms of the MOU, it is stated therein that 9th petitioner company/Green Society shall ensure that shrubs/trees only of acceptable varieties are planted in the industrial estate and such society is responsible for maintenance of the entire existing and the newly planted trees/shrubs on the portion of the land (on both sides as well as central verge of the road/rotary) handed over to them for the purpose of intensive plantation and also the open plots mentioned in the schedule attached to the MOU. There is specific provision under the MOU that the ownership of the lands should continue to vest with the GIDC and all disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching or concerning the MOU shall be decided by the Vice Chairman, the Managing Director of the GIDC and the President of Green Society. 15. There is specific provision under the MOU that the ownership of the lands should continue to vest with the GIDC and all disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching or concerning the MOU shall be decided by the Vice Chairman, the Managing Director of the GIDC and the President of Green Society. 15. Although it is the case of the petitioners that sale of the plots is in violation of MOU, but in clear terms it is stated in the affidavit in reply filed by the GIDC that the GIDC has no intention to breach any of the terms of the MOU entered into on 28th November, 2008 and the Corporation shall auction only those plots which have been earmarked as commercial/industrial and the plots which have been earmarked for green zone as per the MOU shall not be auctioned. In view of such specific averment in the affidavit in reply, there is no reason to disbelieve such statement. While it is true that 9th petitioner having entered into an agreement claiming to have developed greenery by planting trees, but at the same time when the land/plot continue to vest in the Corporation, it is for the respondent No. 2-Corporation to decide to sell the plots which are still available. At the same time, even with reference to the contention of the petitioners that further sale of plots in question would cause pollution and damage the ecology of the industrial estate, it is the specific stand of respondent No. 2 Corporation that they have decided to allot the plots only to the engineering units which do not discharge any effluent. It is stated that even for cutting the trees in the plots which are sought to be sold, the respondent No. 2 Corporation will follow the procedure for taking necessary permission from the Forest Department and in addition to such case of the respondent No. 2 Corporation, it has also stated that the Corporation will further plant 20000 trees in the industrial estate. In view of such averments in the affidavit in reply and in the absence of any definite material and scientific analysis on record, it is not possible for this Court to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that sale of the plots in question pursuant to impugned notice will result in more pollution and damage to ecology of the industrial estate. Even with regard to the claim of the petitioners that they have developed nursery on plot No. 450, it appears that there is no proceeding or permission from the GIDC authorizing the petitioners to develop the nursery in plot No. 450 of the industrial estate. It appears that the petitioner No. 10 on its own entered into an agreement with the Forest Department and claim that they have developed nursery on plot No. 450. 16. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the 1st respondent wherein in para-7 it is stated as under:- "7. I further say and submit that the Plot No. 450 was given by Naroda Industrial Association to the Range Forest Officer, Ahmedabad City, Range Hansol vide agreement dated 18.02.2010 exclusively for the purpose of raising nursery as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement. The said agreement dated 18.02.2010, by which the Plot No. 450 was given to Range Forest Officer, Ahmedabad City, Range Hansol was used by the State Government, Forest Department only for the purpose of raising nursery. The said agreement is annexed to this petition being ANNEXURE "A-F" which clearly mentions the purpose of allotment, thus the State Government has not encroached upon the said land in any manner whatsoever. It is required to be noted here that by the end of September, 2012 the State Government shall return the said land which was allotted in accordance with the agreement dated 18.02.2010. The existing nursery shall be removed for the reason that soil and water in Plot No. 450 is not suitable for raising nursery. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE R-1 is a copy of the decision taken by the Range Forest Officer, City Range Ahmedabad for removing said nursery from the plot No. 450. The existing nursery shall be removed for the reason that soil and water in Plot No. 450 is not suitable for raising nursery. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE R-1 is a copy of the decision taken by the Range Forest Officer, City Range Ahmedabad for removing said nursery from the plot No. 450. I say and submit that therefore, allegations made by the respondent No. 2 against the deponent is totally incorrect, which can be observed by this Hon'ble Court on considering agreement dated 18.02.2010 which was entered into by and between Naroda Industrial Estate and Range Forest Officer, Ahmedabad, Range: Hansol, which makes it very clear that the plot No. 450 was given only with a specific purpose for raising nursery, said land being Plot No. 450 is neither claimed by the State government, nor is encroached upon by the State Government." From the perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that 10th petitioner on its own entered into an agreement with the Range Forest Officer, Ahmedabad, on 18.2.2010 for the purpose of raising nursery on plot No. 450 and the ownership of the said plot is with GIDC. When such plot No. 450 of GIDC is vested with the Corporation, it appears that 10th petitioner on its own entered into an agreement with the RFO, Ahmedabad, to develop nursery on plot No. 450. It is also clear from the affidavit of 1st respondent that they have decided to remove the nursery from plot No. 450 as it is not suitable for raising nursery. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioners that petitioner No. 10 has raised nursery in plot No. 450 and the respondents cannot take steps to remove such nursery from the said plot cannot be accepted. 17. In response to the specific allegation of the petitioners that the plots which are proposed to be sold are situated nearby the residential locality, school and playground, it is averred in the affidavit in reply that as the plots will be sold only to the engineering units, it will not affect the pollution at all. In view of the specific stand of the respondents that the respondents intend to sell only those plots which are earmarked for commercial/industrial purpose and not for greenery, we do not find any merit in the relief as prayed for in the petition. 18. In view of the specific stand of the respondents that the respondents intend to sell only those plots which are earmarked for commercial/industrial purpose and not for greenery, we do not find any merit in the relief as prayed for in the petition. 18. While it is true that petitioner Nos. 9 and 10 have taken measures for improving the greenery, but at the same time, that by itself will not confer any right on them to stop the sale of the left-over plots which are earmarked for commercial/industrial purpose as per the plan prepared by the respondent No. 2 Corporation. It is desirable that even in the industrial estate, minimum required area is to be notified for development of greenery, roads etc, but in the absence of any legislate mandate or executive instructions prescribing such percentage of area, no directions can be granted as prayed for. It is also to be noticed that the entire industrial estate of Naroda is developed in 357 hectares and in the absence of complete data regarding the area utilized for open spaces, parks, roads etc it is not possible to declare the impugned advertisement/notice as illegal on the ground that some plots are allowed to be sold by the respondents to create further pollution and affect the ecological balance. 19. For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any merit in the writ-petition for grant of reliefs as prayed for in the writ-petition. Accordingly, the Special Civil Application is dismissed. Notice discharged. No costs. 20. Before parting with the case, we refer to the order passed by this Court on 15.9.2015 in which this Court directed to provide the precise figures of, a) the total area of GIDC industrial estate, Naroda; b) the area of green space previously dedicated under its development plan and c) green space currently available out of the original area so set up. In response to the same, the Regional Manager of respondent No. 2 Corporation has filed affidavit in reply stating that so far as the GIDC is concerned, there is no specific circular or policy stating the statutory requirement for specifying any area as green space in the industrial estates. In response to the same, the Regional Manager of respondent No. 2 Corporation has filed affidavit in reply stating that so far as the GIDC is concerned, there is no specific circular or policy stating the statutory requirement for specifying any area as green space in the industrial estates. Reference is also made in the circular instructions dated 3.3.2006 and 2.1.2009 to make the area inside the industrial estate and surrounding of industrial units green by plantation Further, the total area of industrial estate is spread over 357 hectares and the description, area, tree plantation area and percentage of plantation area are mentioned in a tabular form which is reads as under: Description Area Tree Plantation Area Percentage Plantatrion Area Green Space and Utility Corridor 186543 m 2 11560 m 2 6.20% PP Area 31360m 2 25080m 2 80.00% It is high time for the State Government and its instrumentalities to take appropriate measures for prevention of pollution and to maintain ecology in the existing industrial estates and also in the industrial estates which are to be notified. It is desirable to have a definite policy prescribing the minimum percentage of area to be left open towards the roads, parks and open space etc.