JUDGMENT & ORDER : A.J. Desai, J. The petitioner, a registered Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 which is trying to set up a Textile Park in the State of Gujarat to ensure industrial development within State of Gujarat since 2007 pursuant to an advertisement issued at National level by Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation respondent herein a Government Corporation, is before the Court with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon the respondent Corporation to allot a piece of land admeasuring 25.47 Hectares at village Icchapore of Hazira area of District Surat since the Company has earlier offered the highest bid and had also deposited the revised price of land fixed by GIDC itself. 2. The short facts arise from the record are as under :- 3. The Government of India decided to set up Textile Parks in various parts of India by offering special incentives for setting up such Textile Parks. The respondent Corporation which is established under the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 which ensures industrial development within the State of Gujarat, passed a Resolution at its 43rd Board meeting on 27.4.2007 to carve out three plots for the purpose of Textile Parks. Accordingly, the Scheme of Integrated Textile Park (SITP) were carved out at village Icchapore of Hazira area of Surat District. Three Parks i.e. SITP-1, SITP-2 and SITP-3 were carved out by GIDC. 4. Gidc issued an advertisement on national level inviting private developers to participate in the auction of three plots of size varying from 22 to 25 Hectares in village Icchapore of Hazira area in the month of May, 2007. Total 9 applications were received for bidding process. The petitioner Company was interested in setting up Textile Park for SITP-2 and interested in getting the land admeasuring of 25.47 Hectares. 5. As far as the land of SITP-2 is concerned, the upset price was fixed by GIDC at Rs. 1400 per Sq. Mtrs. The bidder who has offered the highest price was to be issued a letter of inprinciple allotment (LOI). As per the advertisement, the bidder who quotes the highest price of the plot was to be issued LOI on payment of 5% of the price quoted by him. 1400 per Sq. Mtrs. The bidder who has offered the highest price was to be issued a letter of inprinciple allotment (LOI). As per the advertisement, the bidder who quotes the highest price of the plot was to be issued LOI on payment of 5% of the price quoted by him. If the bidder receives such letter from GIDC, he was required to approach Ministry of Textiles, Government of India for sanction of grant under SITP. 6. As far as SITP-2 is concerned, the petitioner offered the highest price at Rs. 1413/- per Sq. Mtrs. The bid was accepted and the LOI was issued to the petitioner. In the month of July and September 2008, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India approved different two applications qua other Textile Parks. Though the petitioner had paid Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 1,78,85,703/- being 5% of the land price, could not bring SITP approval from the Ministry of Textile, Government of India and, therefore, LOI was cancelled on 17.7.2008. 7. The Textile Commissioner, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, stated that the Ministry will favourably consider the case of the petitioner at the time of reopening by communication dated 15.12.2008. It is pertinent to note that the Ministry of Textiles vide letter dated 4.6.2008 did inform GIDC that the Project Approval Committee also accorded in principle approval to the petitioner to be given first preference as and when any slot is available for new project. 8. The refund order for EMD to the tune of Rs. 1.80 Crores deposited by the petitioner was issued on 12.10.2009. However, the petitioner vide its letter dated 24.10.2009 requested GIDC to extend their letter of LOI. The GIDC, however, issued an advance stamp receipt so that a refund of EMD amount can be issued. Though the EMD amount was paid, before the amount was received by the petitioner Company, validity of LOI was extended time and again and even after payment of EMD amount, the LOI was extended upto 18.6.2011. By letter dated 17.6.2011, the petitioner Company again requested to grant extension of 4 months by assuring that the Company is ready to pay new land price for the land as per prevailing norms of GIDC and also assured of 100% payment and land would be used for the purpose of development of Textile Park under SITP Scheme. 9. By letter dated 17.6.2011, the petitioner Company again requested to grant extension of 4 months by assuring that the Company is ready to pay new land price for the land as per prevailing norms of GIDC and also assured of 100% payment and land would be used for the purpose of development of Textile Park under SITP Scheme. 9. In the meantime, the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India vide its letter dated 8.12.2011 informed the Corporation that one of the 12th Five Year Plan may necessitate sanction of new Projects to meet the plan targets. The proposal of the petitioner would be considered by the Ministry along with other proposal at that time. 10. The GIDC by letter dated 19.8.2014 informed the petitioner that in view of the directions by Ministry of Textile, Government of India, the case of the petitioner was considered by the Government of India and GIDC will decide the proposal as per the prevailing policy of the Corporation. 11. By letter dated 6.8.2015, the Ministry of Textiles approved the Scheme of SITP to the petitioner. On 13.8.2015, the petitioner requested GIDC about the approval by Government of India and requested to approve their bid as decided by the Board of GIDC vide letter dated 13.8.2015. Therefore, the petitioner approached GIDC for allotment of the land. The Board of the Corporation in its 486th meeting considered the case of the petitioner and resolved to allot the land of SITP-2 admeasuring 25.47 Hectares to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 3470 per Sq. Mtr.. The above rate of Rs. 3470 per Sq. Mtr. was decided keeping in approval price with regard to the land in question and considering the industrial Jantri price for Icchapore maintained by the State of Gujarat. The Executive Directors Projects of GIDC informed the Regional Manager of GIDC, Surat by his letter dated 16.1.2016 to allot the land. Accordingly, the Regional Manager, GIDC, Surat by his letter dated 11.2.2016 issued a letter to the petitioner referring subject of offer-cum-allotment of land for development of Integrated Textile Park. The total price of the land was fixed to the tune of Rs. 88,38,09,000/- and the petitioner had to pay the amount on certain terms and conditions and, particularly the petitioner had to pay the said amount within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said letter. 12. The total price of the land was fixed to the tune of Rs. 88,38,09,000/- and the petitioner had to pay the amount on certain terms and conditions and, particularly the petitioner had to pay the said amount within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said letter. 12. The petitioner instead of paying the amount within a period of 30 days, deposited part of the amount after 26 days beyond the period of 30 days as referred in the allotment letter. The Regional Manager, Surat by his communication dated 21.5.2016 called upon the petitioner to deposit additional amount for the same piece of land to the tune of Rs. 8,91,45,000/- since the price of the land had escalated. The petitioner in response to the said letter requested the Managing Director of GIDC by communication dated 26.8.2016 that the delay of 26 days in payment of the price fixed by the GIDC may be pardoned and the demand made by the Regional Manager, Surat may be discarded. Instances with regard to rates fixed by GIDC for developed lands were also quoted in the said letter. Again a letter was received by the petitioner from the Regional Manager, Surat on 10.6.2016 that the offer shall stands cancelled. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation to the State of Gujarat through concerned Secretary to look into the matter and several correspondences were made at the instance of the petitioner. Ultimately, the Board of Directors of the GIDC considered the case of the petitioner and a meeting was held amongst the Board members as well as Vice Chairman and Managing Director of GIDC on 5.7.2016. The Board, after examining the case of the petitioner, the size of the land and the reasons put forward by the petitioner for delayed payment, decided that the land in question shall be allotted to the petitioner at Rs. 3740 per Sq. Mtr. which was decided in the year 2016. 13. Since the respondent Corporation was delaying to hand over the possession of the land in question and every day's delay was causing serious prejudice to the petitioner, the petitioner had no alternative but to approach this Court by filing a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.18144 of 2016 seeking direction to the respondent Corporation to forthwith hand over the possession of the SITP-2 admeasuring 25.47 Hectares. Pursuant to the notice issued in the said petition, the respondent Corporation filed affidavit-in-reply on 30.11.2017 and declared that since the GIDC by a communication dated 30.8.2016 was directed by State of Gujarat to maintain status-quo, it was unable to hand over the possession. However, it was further declared that they are awaiting clear directions from the State of Gujarat and final decision shall be taken within a period of 6 months. A letter dated 4.12.2017 was placed on record of Special Civil Application No.18144 of 2016 by GIDC that Government is likely to take a decision and, therefore, ultimately in view of the above facts, the petition came to be withdrawn by the petitioner. 14. Since the matter was pending before the State of Gujarat and GIDC was awaiting appropriate directions/order from the State of Gujarat, finally, informed the petitioner by an order dated 15.1.2018 that the land in question shall not be allotted to the petitioner. It was further directed that an amount of Rs. 88,38,09,000/- which was deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded. A cheque of Rs. 88,38,09,000/- was sent to the petitioner along with the said order. 15. Hence, this petition. 16. While issuing notice by the coordinate Bench, it was directed that the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to the land in question. The respondent Corporation filed its affidavit-in-reply opposing grant of any relief as prayed for and thereafter, rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner and has placed documentary evidence in support of the contentions raised in the memo of petition and in response to the affidavit filed by GIDC. Respondent No.3 State of Gujarat has not filed any affidavit-in-reply. 17. Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that by the impugned order dated 15.1.2018 and consequential communication dated 16.1.2018, the petitioner was informed that the respondent Corporation has decided to rescind the allotment and further directed to refund the amount paid by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 88,38,09,000/-, however, has not assigned any reasons for such decision. 88,38,09,000/-, however, has not assigned any reasons for such decision. He would submit that the respondent Corporation by filing first affidavit-in-reply dated 20.3.2018 has tried to defend the impugned order by producing two documents, namely, a communication dated 16.2.2017 issued by the State of Gujarat to the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent Corporation as well as the minutes of meeting of GIDC recorded pursuant to Board of Directors meeting held on 4.1.2018. He would submit that the State of Gujarat vide letter dated 16.2.2017 has directed GIDC to resolve the issue at the earliest, whereas the minutes drawn on 4.1.2018 in 498th meeting of Board of Directors discloses that the Board having felt that due to a long drawn history of the case, it was required to reconsider the case afresh and accordingly, directed to put up the land in question for auction afresh. He would further submit that even the minutes of the said meeting does not disclose the reasons when it was expected from the Board to take decision in view of the correspondences between the State of Gujarat and GIDC itself. 18. Mr. Joshi would further submit that when earlier writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.18144 of 2016 was preferred by the petitioner for allotment of land, an affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of GIDC on 30.11.2017 before this Court and it was declared that the State Government had directed the Corporation to maintain status-quo with regard to the subject land and Board of Directors of Corporation were further asked by the State of Gujarat to scrutinize the case. He would further submit that neither the order nor the affidavit or the minutes of 498th meeting of Board of Directors discloses any adversity against allotment of land to the petitioner. He would submit that the only reason assigned by the Corporation not to allot the land, is having some long drawn history. 19. He would further submit that the petitioner had initially offered highest rate for the land in question admeasuring 25.47 Hectares, which was raw in nature. The same was accepted by the Corporation. However, the same was not finalized due to non-receiving clearance from the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India. Since 2007 onwards, correspondences clearly exhibit that the petitioner was interested in developing a Textile Park in a remote area. The same was accepted by the Corporation. However, the same was not finalized due to non-receiving clearance from the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India. Since 2007 onwards, correspondences clearly exhibit that the petitioner was interested in developing a Textile Park in a remote area. The Corporation has also extended the validity of LOI by several communications ranging between 2008 to 2011. The amount of Rs. 1,78,85,703/- was lying with the Corporation itself since 2007. 20. The Ministry of Textiles, Government of India vide its letter dated 8.12.2011 informed the Corporation that one of the 12th Five Year Plan may necessitate sanction of new Projects to meet plan targets, the proposal of the petitioner to set up a Textile Park would be considered along with the other proposal at that time. He would further submit that the Corporation itself by his letter dated 19.8.2014 informed the petitioner that the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India has considered the proposal of GIDC about setting up Textile Park. He would submit that official approval by the Ministry of Textiles was issued on 6.8.2015. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Corporation for allotment of the land and agreed to pay the price of the land at Rs. 3470/- per Sq. Mtr. against the auction price in the year 2007 as offered by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1417/-. The said price was accepted by the Corporation. He would submit that this is the period i.e. between 2007 to December 2015 may be treated a long drawn history by GIDC but the subsequent development in the case establishes that the order impugned has been passed without examining the earlier decision by Corporation itself and has been passed without having any adverse remarks received on record subsequent to the directions by the State of Gujarat. He would further submit that the respondent Corporation has tried to support its decision by raising several aspects with regard to the price of land. However, the said aspect does not disclose either in the impugned order or in the minutes of 498th meeting of the Board of Directors. A statutory functionary cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise and the same is required to be discarded. In support of his submissions, Mr. However, the said aspect does not disclose either in the impugned order or in the minutes of 498th meeting of the Board of Directors. A statutory functionary cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise and the same is required to be discarded. In support of his submissions, Mr. Joshi has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 SCC 405 . By taking me through the affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation dated 20.3.2018 as well as sur-rejoinder dated 21.4.2018, the only ground put forward by the Corporation for rescinding the allotment is with regard to the price of the land in question. He would submit that though it has been contended in paragraph 7 of the sur-rejoinder dated 21.4.2018 by the Corporation that there were various procedural defects and has been considered by the Inquiry Officer as per the letter dated 30.11.2017 of the State of Gujarat, no material has been placed on record and, therefore, such contentions are required to be discarded. 21. He would further submit that having received information from the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, the Corporation by letter dated 11.2.2016 issued offer-cum-allotment of the land in question for development of Integrated Textile Park under SITP at Icchapore, Hazira, Surat accepting the price of Rs. 3470/- per Sq. Mtr. and the price of the land was fixed to the tune of Rs. 88,38,09,000/-. One of the conditions referred in the said letter was that the Corporation will initially execute a license agreement as per the specimens enclosed with the offer-cum-allotment letter on recovery of 100% land price and the Lease Deed would be executed initially for a period of 30 years. He would further submit that as per condition No.3 for having possession of the land, the petitioner was to make the payment of the aforesaid amount within a period of 30 days. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to pay an amount of Rs. 88,38,09,000/- within a period of 30 days after deducting the EMD of Rs. 1,78,85,703/- + Rs. 1,14,700/- which was paid by the petitioner in the year 2007. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to pay an amount of Rs. 88,38,09,000/- within a period of 30 days after deducting the EMD of Rs. 1,78,85,703/- + Rs. 1,14,700/- which was paid by the petitioner in the year 2007. He would submit that it is true that the petitioner could not deposit the entire amount within a prescribed period of 30 days, but deposited in two installments within a period of 56 days. Since the amount was not paid within the period granted by the Corporation, the petitioner was directed to deposit additional amount of Rs. 8,91,45,000/- since the price has revised. He would further submit that the petitioner by communication dated 26.8.2016 tried to explain the Managing Director of Corporation that even in the said area, the GIDC is selling the developed plots which are of a very small size to the tune of Rs. 3971.63 per Sq. Mtr. and, therefore, requested not to demand the said amount. There were several representations made by the petitioner to the Corporation to condone the delay in depositing the amount that too only of 26 days. However, the same was not accepted. 22. He would further submit that pursuant to a detailed representation made by the petitioner, the Board of Directors of Corporation arranged a meeting on 5.7.2016 and it was held in the meeting that the amount fixed to the tune of Rs. 3470/- per Sq. Mtr. for a huge chunk of land which was totally raw and undeveloped, should be accepted and agreement shall be executed. By taking me through the minutes recorded on 5.7.2016 in 490th Meeting, he would submit that the Board of Directors, after discussing various aspects including the history ranging from 2007 till 2016, decided to allot the land in question. He, therefore, would submit that there is no question of having "long drawn history" for rescinding the allotment as observed in the 498th meeting of the Corporation. Though the petitioner was ordered to be allotted the land as per the decision on 5.7.2016, the Corporation did not execute the same and in response to the earlier petition filed by the petitioner, an affidavit was filed that the State of Gujarat has directed to look into the matter. Though the petitioner was ordered to be allotted the land as per the decision on 5.7.2016, the Corporation did not execute the same and in response to the earlier petition filed by the petitioner, an affidavit was filed that the State of Gujarat has directed to look into the matter. He would submit that the State of Gujarat has not filed any affidavit in the matter why the Corporation was restrained from allotment of the land or the reasons not to allot the same as per the decision taken on 5.7.2016. He would submit that the Board of Directors which are having different members in the year 2017, new Directors are estopped from taking different decision in absence of any cogent and rational reasons or any other material to rescind the allotment which was decided by earlier Board of Directors in the year 2016. He would submit that the petitioner has made huge investment for having possession of the land so that Textile industries at a remote place of Surat district can be developed and, therefore, when a promise was given by the Corporation to allot the land cannot be made go away in absence of any strong and reasonable grounds. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission v. R. V. K. Energy Private Limited and others, (2008) 17 SCC 769 . By relying upon the said decision, he would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the principle of doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable and, therefore, the action of the respondent of not allotting the land is required to be quashed and set aside. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Pannalal Banthia and others v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and another, (2007) 10 SCC 674 and would submit that the Board could not have decided contrary to its own earlier meeting dated 5.7.2016 particularly in absence of any reasons. 23. Mr. Joshi would further submit that the instances referred with regard to price of the surrounding land in Surat District, in the additional affidavit dated 21.4.2018 are not comparable since the price referred in the affidavit are of small size of land and already developed by Corporation itself. 23. Mr. Joshi would further submit that the instances referred with regard to price of the surrounding land in Surat District, in the additional affidavit dated 21.4.2018 are not comparable since the price referred in the affidavit are of small size of land and already developed by Corporation itself. The Corporation is selling such small size plots at a higher price in market, after developing the land by providing basic infrastructure like construction of internal roads, electricity and water supply etc. whereas the land granted to the petitioner is a raw land and in the said area, above development is to be made by the petitioner and thereafter to be allotted the same to the members of the petitioner Company. However, by taking me through the sur-rejoinder dated 16.6.2018 along with its annexures, he would submit that the price fixed by GIDC in the area itself in the year 2015 is Rs. 3470/-. Even on 1.4.2016, the price in the Icchapore area was fixed by Corporation and allotted at Rs. 3820/-. However, these lands are being granted by Corporation which are fully developed and not like huge chunk land allotted to the petitioner. 24. In support of his submissions, Mr. Joshi has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and another v. Maharshi Publishers Private Limited and others, (2003) 1 SCC 95 . He would further submit that the price of land was fixed and confirmed by the Board of Directors time and again. However, without no reasons, the Corporation had rescinded the allotment letter. 25. Mr. Joshi would further submit that the only legal contention raised by the respondent Corporation is how the powers granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to be exercised particularly and particularly when there are questions involved are of contractual nature, the petitioner should have availed remedy under ordinary civil law and not invoked the extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In response to this contention, he would submit that it is a well settled principle that when the State or a public body like Corporation acts unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably and if the Court finds that it is contrary to the constitutional right of a citizen guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Court can exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, appropriate writ can be issued by the Court. He would submit that when a State functionary acts in arbitrary manner, the Court can exercise its inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and set the matter at right. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be allowed and the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 26. On the other hand, Mr. P.C. Kavina, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.D. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Corporation has vehemently opposed this petition and would submit that the facts and circumstances of the case would clearly indicate that it is the case with regard to breach of a contract which has not yet executed between the parties. Therefore, the petitioner must challenge the breach of the promises alleged to have been given by the Corporation, by way of filing suit for specific performance and not requesting this Court to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would submit that the petitioner Company had firstly applied for the plot way back in the year 2007, however could not get appropriate sanction from the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India and, therefore, no allotment was ever made to the petitioner. The Corporation did show its readiness and willingness to return the amount of Rs. 1,78,85,703/- being EMD which was deposited by the petitioner at initial stage. However, the petitioner did not accept the same and requested the Corporation to extend the period of LOI. Acceptance of extension by GIDC itself would not bind the Corporation and cannot be treated as if it had agreed that the land would be allotted only and only to the petitioner. 27. He would further submit that it is true that by an order dated 11.2.2016, the Corporation had issued an offer-cum-allotment of land to the petitioner at Rs. 3470/- per Sq. Mtr., but several conditions were imposed for getting a license agreement executed. 27. He would further submit that it is true that by an order dated 11.2.2016, the Corporation had issued an offer-cum-allotment of land to the petitioner at Rs. 3470/- per Sq. Mtr., but several conditions were imposed for getting a license agreement executed. He would submit that most important condition was to make the payment of Rs. 88,38,09,000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the communication. The petitioner failed in complying with the said condition and did not pay the amount within a period of 30 days. The amount was paid by the petitioner after a period of 56 days. Therefore, immediately, a communication was sent to the petitioner by the Corporation that the lease agreement shall not be executed since the petitioner has committed breach of the conditions with regard to payment of the price and was further called upon to pay additional amount of Rs. 8,91,45,000/- for execution of the lease agreement. The Corporation had shown its intention and the petitioner was fully aware that the Corporation had decided to ask for additional amount in view of the increase in the price of the land. Instead of paying the difference of amount, several communications as well as representations were made. He would further submit that it is true that on 5.7.2016, the Board of Directors in its 490th meeting decided to allot the land and execute the Sale Deed at the price which was paid by the petitioner. However, the respondent could not handover the possession or execute the agreement to sell in view of a communication received from the State of Gujarat on 30.11.2017 asking the Corporation to decide the final price of the land after receiving information from the Inquiry Officer. This aspect was brought to the notice of this Court in the earlier proceedings and accordingly, a statement was made before the Court. The said petition was accordingly disposed of. The Board of Directors arranged a meeting on 4.1.2018 and discussed the matter in detail. By taking me through the minutes of meeting dated 4.1.2018 produced by the Corporation itself, he would submit that the case of the petitioner was considered in detail and three options were discussed in the meeting. The said petition was accordingly disposed of. The Board of Directors arranged a meeting on 4.1.2018 and discussed the matter in detail. By taking me through the minutes of meeting dated 4.1.2018 produced by the Corporation itself, he would submit that the case of the petitioner was considered in detail and three options were discussed in the meeting. However, after detailed discussion, it was unanimously resolved that due to long drawn history, the parcel of land in question can be put in question for setting up Industrial Park once again to a successful bidder so that today's market price can be fetched by Corporation which is in public interest. 28. Mr. Kavina would further submit that when the Corporation a Statutory Body after deliberating the case of the petitioner in detail found it necessary to put the land in auction so that the highest price prevailing in the market can be fetched, if there is a grievance of alleged breach of the terms at the instance of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner must approach the Civil Court by filing suit for specific performance and in such circumstances, this Court would be at loath to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and scrutinize the correspondence between the parties. It is an undisputed fact that in public auction, the land is going to fetch more price than fixed earlier. Therefore, in such circumstances, the Court would not like to interfere with the decision of the Corporation. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jespar I. Slong v. State of Meghalaya and others, (2004) 11 SCC 485 . He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited and others v. Vardan Linkers and others, (2008) 12 SCC 500 . 29. Mr. Kavina would further submit that even contract is not concluded in the present case. He would submit that it is in the public interest and in the interest of the Government that the Corporation would be allowed to auction the property, so as to fetch higher amount. The Court may and should not exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would submit that it is in the public interest and in the interest of the Government that the Corporation would be allowed to auction the property, so as to fetch higher amount. The Court may and should not exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the prayers made in the petition are perused, it would tantamount to asking the Corporation to execute a contract which would be governed under the provisions of Specific Relief Act. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the case. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and others v. CWE Soma Consortium, (2016) 14 SCC 172 , in the case of Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited v. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust and others, (2015) 13 SCC 233 and in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and another v. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and another, (2013) 5 SCC 470 . 30. Mr. Kavina would further submit that while rescinding the allotment, the Corporation had issued an A/c. Payee cheque dated 16.1.2018 of Rs. 88,38,09,000/- in favour of the petitioner and was sent along with the impugned order. However, the petitioner has not deliberately encashed the same and filed the present petition. Therefore, the submission made by the petitioner that he has invested huge amount and is lying idle may not be accepted. 31. Apart from this submission, he would submit that during the interregnum period, the prices of the land in area in question has gone much higher and some instances are referred in the affidavit. Hence, the Corporation can fetch the price at much higher price when the surrounding land was auctioned by the Corporation. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be dismissed. 32. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, perused several communications exchanged between the parties to the petition, affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation dated 30.9.2017 in Special Civil Application No.18144 of 2016 and the affidavits filed in the present proceedings as well as the rejoinder affidavits filed by the petitioner. 32. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, perused several communications exchanged between the parties to the petition, affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation dated 30.9.2017 in Special Civil Application No.18144 of 2016 and the affidavits filed in the present proceedings as well as the rejoinder affidavits filed by the petitioner. There is no dispute that in the year 2007, when the Government of India floated Scheme to set up Textile Parks by offering special incentives in various parts of India and accordingly, the Corporation who is the statutory body incorporated under the provisions of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1962, passed a Resolution on 27.4.2007 in its 43rd Board meeting to carve out 3 plots for the purpose of such Textile Parks. Accordingly, 3 Schemes (Scheme of Integrated Textile Park) SITP1, SITP-2 and SITP-3 were carved out. The present petitioner, a Private Limited Company, was interested with regard to SITP-2. The land intended to be allotted by Corporation for SITP-2 admeasures 25.47 Hectares (2,54,700/- Sq. Mtrs.). Pursuant to an advertisement by Corporation on national level, auction was held in the month of May 2007. The upset price of the said land was fixed at Rs. 1400/- per Sq. Mtr. The petitioner was the highest bidder who had offered Rs. 1413/- per Sq. Mtr. and, therefore, his bid was accepted. Accordingly, by letter dated 20.7.2007, LOI of the said plot was issued. As per the condition of the bid, 5% of the total value i.e. Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 1,78,85,703/- was deposited by the petitioner. Since the petitioner could not bring the approval from the Textile Commissioner, Government of India, LOI was cancelled. However, the Ministry of Textiles disclosed that the case of the petitioner would be considered in future. The refund of the amount paid by the petitioner as EMD was issued. However, request was made by the petitioner to Corporation to extend the period was considered and LOI was extended time and again. For a considerable long time, GIDC had extended the time and amount of EMD paid by the petitioner was not refunded to the petitioner and it remained lying with the Corporation. The fact also reveals that in the year 2014, principal approval was granted by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Corporation to consider the case. The fact also reveals that in the year 2014, principal approval was granted by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Corporation to consider the case. The Board of Directors of Corporation in its 486th meeting considered the case of the petitioner and resolved to allot the land in question to the tune of Rs. 3470/- per Sq. Mtr. Prevailing the allotment price and accordingly issued LOI on 11.2.2016. 33. In view of these facts i.e. the period between 2007 to 2016, the land in question was lying as it is and the Corporation did not proceed further to allot the land to any other party and did not ever publish any advertisement for any auction though there were no proceedings pending in any Court or any stay granted in any matter. Ultimately, when the Corporation itself, fixed the price of Rs. 3470/- per Sq. Mtr. in the year 2016 in its 486th meeting, in my opinion, the submission made by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi appearing for the petitioner that the reasons for rescinding the allotment given by the Corporation of long drawn history cannot be accepted since the Corporation had waived the entire period between 2007 to 2016 during which certain correspondences were exchanged between the parties. Even otherwise, there is nothing adversary against the petitioner during that period also. When the Corporation itself has in its general meeting had fixed the price and accordingly issued LOI, it cannot cancel the allotment on the ground that there is a long drawn history. 34. As far as the condition of depositing the price fixed by Offer cum Allotment of land dated 11.2.2016 is concerned, it is true that the petitioner was duty bound to pay the entire amount of Rs. 88,38,09,000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said letter. Condition No.3 of the said letter reads as under :- "3. Offer amount :- You are requested to make payment of Rs. 88,38,09,000/- (Rupees Eighty Eight Crores Thirty Eight Lacs Nine Thousand only) being 100% of the total cost of the land i.e. Rs. 88,38,09,000/- within the 30 days from the offer-cum-allotment letter. After deducting the EMD of Rs. 1,78,85,703 + 1,14,700/- paid by you in the year 2007. Offer amount :- You are requested to make payment of Rs. 88,38,09,000/- (Rupees Eighty Eight Crores Thirty Eight Lacs Nine Thousand only) being 100% of the total cost of the land i.e. Rs. 88,38,09,000/- within the 30 days from the offer-cum-allotment letter. After deducting the EMD of Rs. 1,78,85,703 + 1,14,700/- paid by you in the year 2007. The actual differential amount shall be paid by you or refunded by you on the final survey and measurement of land." 35. It is true that the petitioner did not pay the amount within the prescribed time, but deposited the said amount in two installments within a period of 56 days from the date of receipt of the letter. When the amount was not paid, Regional Manager of the Corporation informed the petitioner by his communication dated 21.5.2016 that since there is a price rise in the land and the amount is paid at belated stage, if he intends to get the lease agreement executed, he should pay the difference of Rs. 8,91,45,000/-. However, there are no reasons or material supplied to the petitioner or before the Court that how the rates have enhanced within a period of 30 days i.e. 11.2.2016 to 21.5.2016. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner immediately made representation and tried to clarify that the difference is on higher side and the plots which are being allotted by the Corporation to private parties are of very small in nature and developed lands whereas the land intended to be granted to the petitioner is of raw land and huge piece of land. Condition No.4 of the Offer cum Allotment of land dated 11.2.2016 makes it clear that the land in question is a raw land which reads as under :- "4. Main conditions :- (a) GIDC had invited bids from private developers for 3 SITP plots at Ichchapore, Hazira Area in May, 2007 in response to which you had participated for allotment of SITP Plot No.2 admeasuring 25.47 Hect. GIDC was intended to allot plot to the private developer quoting the highest bid price. The private developer was required to bring in Letter of Approval from Ministry of Textile, GoI about sanction of financial assistance limited to Rs. 40 Crores under the Scheme of Integrated Textile Park. As per the arrangement, GIDC was intended to allot raw land to the developer without any infrastructure. The private developer was required to bring in Letter of Approval from Ministry of Textile, GoI about sanction of financial assistance limited to Rs. 40 Crores under the Scheme of Integrated Textile Park. As per the arrangement, GIDC was intended to allot raw land to the developer without any infrastructure. The developer was required to develop thereon and Integrated Textile Park in conformity with the said scheme and market parcels of developed plot to the eligible textile related units under the scheme. (b) You have submitted to us a copy of letter No.19/40/2014-SITP dt.06/08/2015 of Under Secretary, Ministry of Textile, Government of India informing that your project proposal under SITP has been approved by the Project Approval Committee and requesting you to take immediate possession of the land. Allotment of land of plot No.SITP-2 is subject to terms and conditions stipulated for sanction of financial assistance and approval of the project under SITP. That, you will utilize the land strictly for the purpose of setting up Integrated Textile Park thereon and for no other purpose Commercial/Residential use is not permitted. You will tender to us a stamped undertaking to the effect that allotted land will be utilized by you strictly as per SITP. That, in the eventuality of your not taking financial assistance under SITP or your not adhering to the terms and conditions of the scheme, you will unconditionally surrender the land to GIDC. (c) You will undertake to utilize the financial assistance under the scheme for provision of infrastructure in the Integrated Textile Park and to the extent possible, pass on the benefit of financial assistance under the SITP to the units being set up in the Park. (d) GIDC will initially execute a License Agreement as per specimen enclosed and put you to possession of land on recovery of 100% land price. GIDC will execute lease-deed parallely for an initial period of 30 years on complying with the following milestones simultaneously :- (i) Making available a certified copy of detailed sanction letter under SITP of Ministry of Textile, GoI. (ii) Approval of lay-out and building by SUDA. (iii) Release of first tranche of financial assistance by Ministry of Textile, GoI. (iv) Submission of a time-bound programme for utilization of the plot under the SITP. (ii) Approval of lay-out and building by SUDA. (iii) Release of first tranche of financial assistance by Ministry of Textile, GoI. (iv) Submission of a time-bound programme for utilization of the plot under the SITP. Initial lease tenure of 30 years is further extendable by additional period of 30 years subject to such lease rent as may be then decided. Meanwhile, lease rent for the initial tenure of 30 years will be Re.1 per 836 Sq. Mtrs. (1000 sq. yards) per year. (e) In case of any change in the constitution of the allottee or the sub-lessees, you will have to obtain GIDC's permission. You/sub-lessees will be governed by the transfer policy of GIDC and required to pay such transfer fee as prevalent on the basis of notified allotment price decided by GIDC from time to time. In the alternative, you have the option to pay additional upfront transfer deposit @ 5% of the allotment price Rs. 3,470/- per Sq. Mtr. Amounting to about Rs. 4,41,90,450/- worked out on the tentative area of 25.47 hects. (f) Above land is allotted to you on "as is where is basis". Accordingly, you shall be liable to pay pro-rata additional Land Reference Compensation with interest, if any, in respect of the allotted land, awarded by a competent Court. (g) You will be required to adhere strictly to the development mile-stones given by you. In any case, you will have to complete development of the ITP within 2 years from the date of allotment evidenced by a completion certificate of SUDA. GIDC will consider giving you additional one year's extension for complete development of the ITP without changing any Non-utilization Penalty depending upon the development already undertaken and the development to be undertaken. (h) Land allotted to you falls within Hazira Notified Area. You will be required to pay Consolidated Notified Area Tax for the entire land without any rebate for common areas such as road, cop, etc. You can recover pro-rata NA Tax from your allottee. To sum up, you will be assessee for recovery of NA Tax. Similarly, you will be required to pay NA Assessment and such other charges decided by the Government. (i) Land allotted to you is on tentative area basis subject to final survey and measurement. Consequently, you will be required to pay the land price etc. depending upon the final area of the plot. Similarly, you will be required to pay NA Assessment and such other charges decided by the Government. (i) Land allotted to you is on tentative area basis subject to final survey and measurement. Consequently, you will be required to pay the land price etc. depending upon the final area of the plot. Further, sub-division of SITP plots and provision/passage of road in the DD plan of Ichhapore is subject to approval of SUDA. You will be required to get lay out of your Park & Buildings approval from SUDA at your own cost. GIDC will not be responsible for any delay in approval of your plans. (j) You will provide quality infrastructure in the Park. You will also set up a Training Centre within the Park for skill repair/upgradation the workers. You will encourage use of non-conventional sources of energy in the Park, e.g. solar lights, green-buildings, etc. (k) You shall have to pay development charge, if applicable, as it relates to upgradation/betterment of the estate in future. (l) EIA and all environmental clearance shall be taken before commencement of development of the Park. Plots within the earmarked area will be given to confirming industries only. Chemical/Pollution generating industries shall not be encouraged since disposal of effluents is not available. (m) Industrial units in SITP shall fill at least 85% of post by recruiting local persons and for managerial and supervisory cadres, at least 65% of post shall have to be filled by the local persons. The expression local person shall mean a person domiciled in Gujarat State for minimum 15 years." It is amply clear from the above conditions that the land is raw land and the petitioner has to develop a huge area of land. 36. The petitioner made repeated representations and brought to the notice of certain factual aspects about the allotment letter and the policy of Corporation and requested that delay of only 26 days in payment may be excused and the land may be allotted. Ultimately, again the Board of Directors arranged 490th meeting on 5.7.2016. If the minutes of the said meeting dated 5.7.2016 (Annexure I) is perused, it appears that the members of the Board of the Corporation did remain present in the meeting, discussed all the past transactions between 2007 to 2016. It also appears from the notings of the said meeting that out of Rs. If the minutes of the said meeting dated 5.7.2016 (Annexure I) is perused, it appears that the members of the Board of the Corporation did remain present in the meeting, discussed all the past transactions between 2007 to 2016. It also appears from the notings of the said meeting that out of Rs. 88,38,09,000/-, the petitioner had made payment of Rs. 26,50,00,403/- within a period of 30 days wherein rest of the amount was paid thereafter, that too within a period of 26 days. The following relevant observations made in the minutes of meeting dated 5.6.2016 are necessary to reproduce to establish that the case of the petitioner was discussed in detail and it was decided that the amount should be accepted and the lease agreement should be executed :- "The Agenda on the subject matter was submitted to the Board in its 486th meeting held on 01.01.2016. The board resolved to allot land admeasuring tentative area of 25.47 hectares to M/s. NSP Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. at the GIDC's prevailing allotment rate of Rs. 3,470/- per sq. mtr. In Ichchapore Estate, Surat which is more that auction price or even jantri price. Thus, the land price fixed was as per regular allotment rate. Offer cum allotment letter dated 11/02/2016 was issued since the year 2007 EMD is lying with GIDC which will be adjusted against the total value of land. However, GIDC will not make interest payment on the EMD amount. RM (Surat) issued letter dated 21.05.2016 informing NSP Infrastructure that partial payment made by them is with delay and as the allotment price has been revised, you are informed to pay difference amount of Rs. 8.91 Cr. (Price revised from Rs. 3470 to Rs. 3820). GIDC's circular dated 24.10.2011 stipulates that for normal allotment cases, the applicant is required to pay 50% down payment of the OCA amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of allotment letter and balance 50% to be paid by 12 post dated cheques of quarterly installments with the prevailing rate of interest. As per Chairman's view the OCA should have been issued as per this circular dated 24.10.2011 of GIDC, which is applicable today in allotment cases. However, in the present instance, the OCA stipulates 100% payment to be made in 30 days. This is not in accordance with the current payment policy of the corporation. As per Chairman's view the OCA should have been issued as per this circular dated 24.10.2011 of GIDC, which is applicable today in allotment cases. However, in the present instance, the OCA stipulates 100% payment to be made in 30 days. This is not in accordance with the current payment policy of the corporation. Thus, there is a need to rectify the OCA in this case and make allotment as per the prevailing circular dated 24.10.2011. On making the OCA as per this circular, which should have been done originally, there is no delay in payment by the allottee. Hence question of extending the time period for making payment does not arise. Even if the allotment price is revised during the prescribed period of making payment as per the circular dated 24.10.2011, even then there is no question of charging the allottee the increased allotment price if the payment is made within the time prescribed as per circular dated 24.10.2011. Board has already considered the lien on land of NSP Infrastructure though auction price was not realized in 2007 and decided through a Resolution No.19/project/486 was passed on the agenda item no.22/project/485/2015 Dtd.02.01.2016 that OCA shall be given. The price considered was Rs. 3470/- as compared to Sayan Textile (similar case) at Rs. 1467/- which was auctioned price and interest on delayed payment at 14%. In this case, if auction price is considered and interest calculated @ 14% then the total price would come to Rs. 2968/-. However in the Board meeting held on 02.01.2016, it was decided to give it at present allotment price is Rs. 3,470/-. After detailed deliberation, the following resolution was passed unanimously. It is resolved that the letter Dtd.21/05/2016 and d by 10/06/2016 issued by RM, GIDC for cancellation of the offer (as full payment was not made within 30 days) be and is hereby rescinded is the project is approved under the SITP scheme of Ministry of Textiles, Government of India and accordingly GIDC Board has considered allotment of land. It was resolved to rectify the OCA and allot the plot in question to NSP Infrastructure as per the Corporation Circular Dtd.24/10/2011." 37. From the above observations, it is clear that the Corporation has waived the delayed payment after considering various Circulars issued by GIDC itself. 38. It was resolved to rectify the OCA and allot the plot in question to NSP Infrastructure as per the Corporation Circular Dtd.24/10/2011." 37. From the above observations, it is clear that the Corporation has waived the delayed payment after considering various Circulars issued by GIDC itself. 38. Though a decision was taken by the Board of Directors way back on 5.7.2016, the Corporation did not hand over the possession nor executed any Lease Deed and, therefore, writ petition being Special Civil Application No.18144 of 2016 came to be filed by the petitioner against the Corporation. An affidavit was filed in the said petition by the Corporation and the relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below :- "9. Subsequently, in the 490th Board meeting held on 05-07-2016, the case of the petitioner was again submitted to the Board and it was resolved by the Board that letter dated 21-05-2016 and 10-06-2016 issued by RM, GIDC, Surat were rescinded as the project was approved under the SITP Scheme of Government of India. It was further resolved to rectify the OCA and allot the plot in question to the petitioner as per the circular dated 24-10-2011. However, since the decision of the Board has to be ratified in form of resolution, the possession of the land was not handed over to the petitioner immediately. 10. Meanwhile, vide letter dated 30-08-2016, GIDC was directed by Government of Gujarat to maintain status-quo in the said subject matter as there has been scrutiny into the process of this matter by Government of Gujarat. Any further decision on the subject has to be taken as per the direction of Government of Gujarat. So far, the Corporation is yet to receive any clear directions from the Government of Gujarat. Presently, due to election, we request that a time period of 6 (six) months may be granted so as to obtain clear directions from the Government of Gujarat." 39. It was the case of the Corporation that the State of Gujarat has directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the land in question. The letter dated 30.11.2017 which is produced on record does suggest that the Inquiry Officer has to decide the price. During the pendency of the said petition, a categorical statement was made before the coordinate Bench on behalf of the Corporation that the Corporation is likely to take a decision in the matter. The letter dated 30.11.2017 which is produced on record does suggest that the Inquiry Officer has to decide the price. During the pendency of the said petition, a categorical statement was made before the coordinate Bench on behalf of the Corporation that the Corporation is likely to take a decision in the matter. Therefore, the said petition came to be disposed of. 40. In view of the above background, the Corporation has to examine the report from the Inquiry Officer and thereafter has to take decision. Now, the impugned order dated 15.1.2018 is perused, there are no reasons assigned for rescinding the allotment. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are reproduced herein below :- "The Corporation has allotted Land for Development of Integrated Textile Park under SITP at Ichhapore Hazira, Surat to M/s. NSP Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 11/02/2017. The License Agreement could not be executed. As per Resolution NO.5/Pre-allotment/498 Dated 04/01/2018, the Corporation has decided to rescind the allotment and the amount paid by the allottee may be refunded as per prevailing policy of the Corporation. Accordingly Rescindment order No. GIDC/RM/SRT/2931 Dated 15/01/2018 have been issued." 41. However, if the minutes of 498th meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation are perused which is produced on record by the Corporation, the following decision was taken :- "After detailed discussion, it was unanimously resolved that; The Board discussed the matter thread bare. The board felt that due to a long drawn history of this case, it would be better to reconsider the case afresh. The Board decided for disposal of the land, process may be carried out afresh. The earlier allotment can be cancelled and the money paid may be returned as per prevailing policy of GIDC. This land parcel may be put for auction for setting up of SITP once again and allot to the successful bidder only if they get time bound approval and time lines should be followed strictly." 42. Neither the minutes of the Board meeting nor the impugned order discloses any report from the Inquiry Officer, about the price of the land or any illegalities in the allotment of land etc. If the Corporation was relying upon any report from the Inquiry Officer and if there is any report, the same should have been recorded either in the meeting or in the impugned order. If the Corporation was relying upon any report from the Inquiry Officer and if there is any report, the same should have been recorded either in the meeting or in the impugned order. It is pertinent to note that the State Government who directed for inquiry has not filed any affidavit. However, the Court has gone into the files of the State Government with regard to the case in question, but could not find any adverse remark. Thus, it appears that the new Board of Directors has decided to rescind the allotment only on the ground of "long drawn history" can not be treated as appropriate or relevant ground in rejecting the case of the petitioner. On the contrary, the Board members have discarded all relevant aspects which were discussed and recorded in its 495th meeting. 43. When a decision was already taken in the month of July 2016 by the Board of Directors to allot the land at the same price, there was no reason not to execute the same in absence of justifiable reason. As far as the submissions made by Mr. Kavina with regard to alternative remedy by way of civil suit for specific performance is concerned, I have gone through the decisions relied upon by him. However, the peculiar facts and circumstances are such that the Court would like to interfere with the impugned decision taken by the Corporation, having found it arbitrary, illegal and without any justifiable reason. 44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Limited and another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and others, (2004) 3 SCC 553 has held that a writ can be issued against the State or instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation if it is found that the authority is acting contrary to the same. 45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Noble Resources Limited v. State of Orissa and another, (2006) 10 SCC 236 has held that even at the threshold of a contract and a breach of contract, if the High Court examines the case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India finds that the authority is acting contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a writ can be issued against such arbitrary action. 46. 46. Prima facie, it appears that the relationship between the respondent Corporation and the petitioner are of contractual nature which has not completed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Limited, has while dealing with interpretation of insurance contract held in paragraph 27 as under :- "27. From the above discussion of ours, following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition :- (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of facts arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable." 47. In the above referred decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned the High Courts by observing that prerogative writ will not normally be exercised to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable. Paragraph 28 of the said decision reads as under :- "28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power [See: Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1 ]. And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction." 48. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Limited, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another decision in the case of Noble Resources Limited has held in paragraphs 15, 26 and 27 as under :- "15. It is trite that if an action on the part of the State is violative the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a writ petition would be maintainable even in the contractual field. A distinction indisputably must be made between a matter which is at the threshold of a contract and a breach of contract; whereas in the former the court's scrutiny would be more intrusive, in the latter the court may not ordinarily exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review, unless it is found to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. While exercising contractual powers also, the government bodies may be subjected to judicial review in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism on its part. Indisputably, inherent limitations exist, but it would not be correct to opine that under no circumstances a writ will lie only because it involves a contractual matter. 26. In ABL International Ltd., this Court opined that on a given set of facts, if a State acts in an arbitrary manner even in a matter of contract, a writ petition would be maintainable. It was opined :- "It is clear from the above observations of this Court, once the State or an instrumentality of the State is a party of the contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if by the impugned repudiation of the claim of the appellants the first respondent as an instrumentality of the State has acted in contravention of the abovesaid requirement of Article 14, then we have no hesitation in holding that a writ court can issue suitable directions to set right the arbitrary actions of the first respondent". 27. Contractual matters are, thus, not beyond the realm of judicial review. Its application may, however, be limited." 49. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Limited, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another decision in the case of Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India has held in paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 as under :- "26. Its application may, however, be limited." 49. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Limited, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another decision in the case of Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India has held in paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 as under :- "26. After holding so, this Court has concluded as under :- (ABL International Ltd. Case, SCC p.580, para 53) "53. From the above, it is clear that when an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in its contractual, constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus if we apply the above principle of applicability of Article 14 to the facts of this case, then we notice that the first respondent being an instrumentality of the State and a monopoly body had to be approached by the appellants by compulsion to cover its export risk. The policy of insurance covering the risk of the appellants was issued by the first respondent after seeking all required information and after receiving huge sums of money as premium exceeding Rs. 16 lakhs. On facts we have found that the terms of the policy do not give room to any ambiguity as to the risk covered by the first respondent. We are also of the considered opinion that the liability of the first respondent under the policy arose when the default of the exporter occurred and thereafter when the Kazakhstan Government failed to fulfill its guarantee. There is no allegation that the contracts in question were obtained either by fraud or by misrepresentation. In such factual situation, we are of the opinion, the facts of this case do not and should not inhibit the High Court or this Court from granting the relief sought for by the petitioner." 27. In a recent decision in Karnataka State Forest Industries Corporation vs. Indian Rocks, (2009) 1 SCC 150 , while considering the similar issue, S.B. Sinha, J. speaking for the Bench reiterated thus :- "38. In a recent decision in Karnataka State Forest Industries Corporation vs. Indian Rocks, (2009) 1 SCC 150 , while considering the similar issue, S.B. Sinha, J. speaking for the Bench reiterated thus :- "38. Although ordinarily a superior court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not enforce the terms of a contract qua contract, it is trite that when an action of the State is arbitrary or discriminatory and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a writ petition would be maintainable. (See ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.) 39. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a writ of mandamus can be issued only when there exists a legal right in the writ petition and a corresponding legal duty on the part of the State, but then if any action on the part of the State is wholly unfair or arbitrary, the superior Courts are not powerless." 28. It is clear that, (a) in the contract if there is a clause for arbitration, normally, writ court should not invoke its jurisdiction; (b) the existence of effective alternative remedy provided in the contract itself is a good ground to decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226; and if the instrumentality of the State acts contrary to the public good, public interest, unfairly, unjustly, unreasonably discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India in its contractual or statutory obligation, writ petition would be maintainable. However, a legal right must exist and corresponding legal duty on the part of the State and if any action on the part of the State is wholly unfair or arbitrary, writ courts can exercise their power. In the light of the legal position, writ petition is maintainable even in contractual matters, in the circumstances mentioned in the earlier paragraphs." 50. In view of the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the present petition is required to be entertained. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 15.1.2018 and consequential communication dated 16.1.2018 issued by the Corporation are quashed and set aside. In view of the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the present petition is required to be entertained. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 15.1.2018 and consequential communication dated 16.1.2018 issued by the Corporation are quashed and set aside. The Corporation shall act in accordance with the Offer-cum-Allotment order dated 11.2.2016 as well as the minutes drawn in its 490th meeting of the Board of Directors dated 5.7.2016 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.