ORDER : VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. Present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed against the CAV judgment dated 16.2.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11047 of 2000. 2. The case of the appellant-GIDC is that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein-original petitioners had filed Writ Petition for the purpose of challenging the decision of the appellant-GIDC in respect of an issue related to allotment of land. The case of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein who filed the Writ Petition is that land bearing Survey No. 2563 of Vadhwan, Taluka & District-Surendrangar came to be acquired by appellant-GIDC for an industrial purpose and out of land admeasuring 12660.70 sq. mtrs., over the land admeasuring 9872 sq. mtrs. 16 plots have been made by the appellant-GIDC for commercial purpose and layout of these plots has been approved and sanctioned by the competent authority, namely, the Municipality as well as Deputy Town Planner, Surendranagar. These 16 plots admeasuring around 190 sq. mtrs. have already been allotted for the commercial purpose and rest of the plots are available for allotment for commercial purpose as per the Regulations of appellant-GIDC. 2.1. The respondents-original petitioners, who are belonging to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe category, applied for seeking allotment on 23.4.1999 by making requisite security fees, deposited the amount as per the Regulations. In turn, the application was acknowledged and informed the respondents on 26.4.1999. Said application despite payment of requisite fees and submission of all particulars as per the norms, was not processed any further and in the meantime, it was noticed by respondents that some third party application was in the process of being considered at a concessional rate and thereto, for a purpose different than the commercial. The respondents being landless persons, belonging to scheduled caste, residing in Vadhwan city and seeking the land for the purpose of business as per the scheme of the Government which is framed for encouraging weaker section of the society, was constrained to approach this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 11047 of 2000 and during the pendency of the said petition, the respondent No. 3 herein demanded the land of GIDC on 19.10.2000 and sizable portion of land in the form of Plot Nos. 1508/4 to 1508/6 admeasuring 3148.04 sq. mtrs. was allotted at a concessional rate of Rs. 175/- per sq. 1508/4 to 1508/6 admeasuring 3148.04 sq. mtrs. was allotted at a concessional rate of Rs. 175/- per sq. mtr. as against the allotment fixed at Rs. 700/- per sq. mtr., though there was a policy to allot the plot for commercial purpose, whereas the respondent No. 3 was allotted for charitable purpose. 2.2. Said Writ Petition was entertained by the learned Single Judge and upon hearing it finally, the learned Single Judge on 16.2.2017 was pleased to direct the appellant-GIDC to offer plots at the rates prevalent in 1999 and allowed the Writ Petition. The operative part thereof contained in Para. 9 is reproduced below: "9. Under the circumstances, ends of justice will be met by directing the respondents-GIDC to allot the plots to the petitioners as applied by them and applications accepted by the respondents. Therefore, it is directed that the GIDC will make an offer to the petitioners for allotments of the plots as applied by them, and agreed by GIDC in their affidavit. If the petitioners are still desirous of such allotment, plots will be allotted at the rates prevalent in 1999 when the petitioners applications were accepted and the required money was deposited by them. The entire exercise will be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Resultantly, this petition is allowed in aforementioned terms. This Court restrain itself to impose costs upon the GIDC as ultimately general public will have to pay for the mischief of few persons in the GIDC." 2.3. It is this order which is made the subject matter of present Letters Patent Appeal before us. 3. Shri M.B. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Chintan Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant-GIDC, has vehemently contended that with respect to allotment, the policy is very much framed and the same is being observed. However, the learned Single Judge has not considered the affidavits which have been brought to the notice. It has further been contended that the policy of allotment of plots is always for industrial purpose and not for the commercial. The original petitioners needed the plots having an area of 300 sq. yards and as the size of the plots available with the GIDC was 500 to 1000 sq. yards, the same was not possible to be allotted to the original petitioners. The original petitioners needed the plots having an area of 300 sq. yards and as the size of the plots available with the GIDC was 500 to 1000 sq. yards, the same was not possible to be allotted to the original petitioners. It has further been contended that a detailed affidavit-in-reply is already filed by GIDC in which 4 petitioners sought an allotment for commercial plots and the applications which were made is for the purpose other than prescribed in the policy. All the 4 applicants have made their respective applications for the following request: Sr. No. Name Particulars 1 L.P.Vania Vegetable and Fruit Shop 2 Jivuben Laundry work 3 Sumara Cutlary and crockery shop 4 Sangetaben Tailoring work 3.1. It has been contended that according to the Rules and Regulations approved by Vadhwan Municipality, the plots which have been approved are of 500 to 1000 sq. yards but, the plots as sought for commercial purpose, the requirement is negligible and the Municipality does not approve plans for less than 300 sq. yards and as such, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered this assertion which has been made specifically in affidavit of the appellant. 3.2. It was pointed out specifically before the learned Single Judge, as said by learned Senior Counsel, that even GIDC had written a letter to Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, State of Gujarat, to give appropriate direction to the concerned Municipality and to approve commercial plots of 300 sq. yards as a special case instead of layout plan which has been approved. But no approval had been accrued so far, resultantly it is not possible for the appellant to consider the request of the original petitioners and if the plotting is not approved then the construction would also not be permissible by the municipality and as such, even if it is allotted, such allotment would be useless. On the contrary, it has been categorically submitted before the learned Single Judge and even deduced in writing in the affidavit that if this hurdle is removed then, there is no question of refusal of allotment by GIDC and at the relevant point of time, the appellant was prepared to make allotment. It is but for want of approval, the same could not be effected. It is but for want of approval, the same could not be effected. An attempt was made by original petitioners at a relevant point of time by pointing out that allotment made in favour of Anandji Motibhai Charitable Trust but, the entire object of the Trust was to cater the food necessity to poor people and since the Trust was not carrying out any commercial activity and was not for profit making activity, the concessional rate was offered, whereas the original petitioners are out to have a commercial activity and as such, two different sets of circumstances are not possible to be equated just to consider the request of respondents herein. The detailed issues which have been pointed out in the affidavit-in-reply and the plan which has been projected before the learned Single Judge, it appears that the learned Single Judge has not considered it in its true perspective. As a result of this, at this stage of the proceedings and in the year 2017 to consider the allotment of original petitioners at the rate prevailing in 1999 is nothing but putting the appellant to great jeopardy. As a result of this, since the order in question is unmindful of relevant circumstances which have been pointed out, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not examining the issue touching the root of the controversy. 3.3. Shri M.B. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel, has also relied upon and referred to the affidavit filed by the trustee of respondent No. 3-Trust, detailing out the circumstances and additional affidavit which has been filed by GIDC, has also clarified the entire position and has pointed out that so far as the plots which are allotted to respondent No. 3, at the relevant point of time the resolution was passed bearing Resolution No. 396 at a concessional rate; it is exclusively looking to the benevolent object for which the Trust was set up and the same was only with a view to see that the allottees of GIDC may get facility and as such, even request was made that auction proceedings be permitted, so that if desired even the original petitioners can participate. But the learned Single Judge without considering the same has disposed of the petition as if the appellant has made some undue favour to respondent No. 3 by violating the own policy. But the learned Single Judge without considering the same has disposed of the petition as if the appellant has made some undue favour to respondent No. 3 by violating the own policy. According to learned Senior Counsel, the reasons which are assigned while passing the impugned order are also not cogent enough to substantiate the ultimate conclusion. As a result of this, the order in question requires to be set aside. 3.4. Shri M.B. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, has further submitted that on the contrary, the learned Single Judge ought to have examined the policy of 1993 and 2010. Had this policy been considered, the order would not have been passed. The Circular dated 23.3.1993 has devised a policy of allotting out of town priority to the maximum 20% of allottable commercial area for commercial purpose to various categories and as against this prescription, scheduled caste applicants are given 40% concession at the time of application and further, 25% concession in the allotment price is given to scheduled caste applicants. Now, so far as the Vadhwan estate is concerned, out of total 25,000 sq. mtrs. of allottable commercial land, 1327.34 sq. mtrs. were allotted to OTP applicants out of turn priority basis with concession and 9000 sq. mtrs. of industrial plots have been allotted to SC/ST applicants for industrial purpose at a concessional rate and, therefore, on the contrary, the GIDC is taking proactive steps to encourage the weaker section for upliftment by providing industrial and commercial plots and as such, simply because the respondents having merely made an application would not confer any rights in favour of applicants for allotment of land. The purpose for which the applicants had requested for allotment is a commercial purpose and the GIDC has pending commercial plots which are not less than 500 sq. yards and since Vadhwan Municipality was not approving such division of commercial plots of less than 500 sq. yards, no decision was taken in respect of applications of the applicants. So, as per policy of the GIDC governed by recent circular since 1997 and most recently by 22.11.2010, the commercial plots are required to be allotted through auction only. Resultantly, having no legal right with applicants-respondents, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not examining the grievance from this point of view. So, as per policy of the GIDC governed by recent circular since 1997 and most recently by 22.11.2010, the commercial plots are required to be allotted through auction only. Resultantly, having no legal right with applicants-respondents, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not examining the grievance from this point of view. Since without consideration of such stand which has been clarified in additional affidavit-in-reply of amended petition, filed by the Regional Manager, GIDC reflecting on page-90, the order apparently deserves to be corrected. It has been pointed out by learned Senior Counsel that simply because an amount has been taken in respect of the application from the original petitioners, the same would not confer any right for seeking allotment as a matter of right. Learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, has further submitted that the GIDC is inclined to even refund back the amount with appropriate interest which may be determined by the Court. It has further been submitted that there is no dissimilarity in respect of allotment to a private trust, resultantly the order impugned deserves to be corrected. No direction could have been given in aforesaid background of fact and with no further submission, learned Senior Counsel has requested to allow the Letters Patent Appeal. 4. As against this, Shri Manan K. Paneri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents-original petitioners, has submitted that it was specifically agitated before the learned Single Judge that the original petitioners were falling within the norms of the policy and by receiving the application of the original petitioners, even the demanded price was acknowledged by the office of the GIDC way back in 1995. On the contrary, along with that even verification charges have also been received from the original petitioners and if the application to be looked into, the request was made for 500 sq. yards of plot originally. It is only at the instance of GIDC, a letter was written to approve the commercial plots of 300 sq. yards as a special case, as against the layout plan which has been approved. yards of plot originally. It is only at the instance of GIDC, a letter was written to approve the commercial plots of 300 sq. yards as a special case, as against the layout plan which has been approved. After receiving the amount and after writing a letter by GIDC, the Principal Secretary of the concerned department of State of Gujarat, it is not open for the GIDC now to take a different stand particularly when a categorical assertion has been made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Regional Manager, GIDC in the month of June, 2001 that if the hurdle is removed then there is no question of refusal of allotment by GIDC and as such, principally, having practically no objection to take a different stand, is of no avail to the GIDC. The legitimate expectation of the original petitioners accrues on, a moment the applications were received along with the requisite fees. The learned Single Judge has rightly considered the grievances of the original petitioners and passed an order after assigning proper reasons and, therefore, there is hardly any case made out by the appellant to assail the order. 4.1. Shri Paneri, learner counsel, has further submitted that on the contrary, it was the stand of GIDC that there is no requirement of original petitioners for allotment of such a big plot of 500 to 1000 sq. yards. The entire tenor of the affidavit which has been filed, is clearly indicating the stand of the authority. A specific amendment has been made in the pleadings by the original petitioners by inserting Para. A to F and has categorically submitted that the original petitioners are belonging to scheduled caste, residing at Vadhwan city and are landless persons and as such, falling within the scheme of the Government to seek encouragement as a weaker section by providing plots of GIDC. It has been categorically submitted that during the pendency of the petition, the original respondent No. 3 demanded the land from the GIDC by making an application on 19.10.2000 and the same was granted. The land bearing Plot Nos. 1508/4 to 1508/6 admeasuring 3148.04 sq. mtrs. is already allotted at a concessional rate of 175/- per sq. mtr. as against the allotment price fixed at Rs. 700/- per sq. mtr. The land bearing Plot Nos. 1508/4 to 1508/6 admeasuring 3148.04 sq. mtrs. is already allotted at a concessional rate of 175/- per sq. mtr. as against the allotment price fixed at Rs. 700/- per sq. mtr. and though the industrial estate is meant for allotment of plot for commercial purpose, the original respondent No. 3 had been granted for charitable purpose. It has been specifically asserted that in the earlier meeting of the GIDC, a decision was taken to reject the application of original respondent No. 3 and in spite of such decision, later on, the land is allotted to original respondent No. 3 at a concessional rate and thereto, for noncommercial purpose. Thus, in respect of allotment of original respondent No. 3, they have violated their own policy. All these circumstances which are part of the pleadings, and as such, when the learned Single Judge has considered at length, examined the issue and then, issued direction, the same cannot be said to be unjust and illegal in any form. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant-GIDC deserves to be dismissed as meritless. 4.2. However, Shri Paneri, learned counsel, has candidly submitted that from the order in question, it appears that two additional affidavits which have been filed at a later point in time as well as the policies which are attached with the civil application appear to have not been not dealt with and the learned counsel is not in a position to confront with this submission of Shri Gandhi. The relevant material adduced along with it has not been considered. Resultantly, after submitting, the issue is left to the discretion of the Court. 4.3. With respect to refund of amount with appropriate rate of interest, Shri Paneri, learned counsel, has chosen, under the instructions, not to withdraw or seek refund but, would like to continue the challenge made in the original petition. With this submission, learned counsel has requested the Court to pass appropriate orders. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the material placed before us, prima facie, we are satisfied that while passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge appears to have not dealt with the stand taken by the appellant-GIDC in its additional affidavit. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the material placed before us, prima facie, we are satisfied that while passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge appears to have not dealt with the stand taken by the appellant-GIDC in its additional affidavit. Principally, the stand of the appellant-GIDC in its affidavit filed in June, 2001 was to the effect that the original petitioners are not in need of allotment of big plots of 500 to 1000 sq. yards and the appellant-GIDC basically had no problem to allot but, the Municipality is to be directed by concerned department of the State Government to get it approved the layout plans for commercial plots of 300 sq. yards around as a special case. It is but for the fact that no approval was received, the allotment could not be effected. It appears that both the sides under the lame hope of getting such permission, waited for the outcome but, no concrete decision so far has been taken and it also appears that the learned Single Judge proceeded on the footing that since the appellant-GIDC has accepted the amount from the original petitioners, the allotment has to be made. 6. It further reflects that in Para. 5 of the judgment, it has been observed that though three original petitioners have applied for plots of 500 sq. yards, whereas one of the petitioners has applied for plot admeasuring 800 sq. yards. But on account of some of the more fertile brain in the corporation, a hypothetical assessment reflected that the petitioners can be allotted plots of size of 300 sq. yards. The learned Single Judge appears to have taken in aid an issue related to allotment to charitable trust and then, has directed the plots to be allotted at the rate prevalent in 1999. 7. But having gone through the contents of the subsequent additional affidavits of the appellant-GIDC, a clarification is made with regard to the allotment to the charitable trust and has filed a further detailed additional affidavit, clarifying the entire position and said affidavit appears to have been filed in the month of November, 2016 reflecting on page-90 of the appeal compilation. But having gone through the contents of the subsequent additional affidavits of the appellant-GIDC, a clarification is made with regard to the allotment to the charitable trust and has filed a further detailed additional affidavit, clarifying the entire position and said affidavit appears to have been filed in the month of November, 2016 reflecting on page-90 of the appeal compilation. A bare look at the order is justifying the stand of the learned counsels that the order in question is passed without keeping in mind the detailed affidavits which have been submitted and had the affidavits been dealt with, the order would not have been passed of this nature. Even the policy attached to the civil application also appears to have not been dealt with which has led the learned Single Judge to pass the order impugned and as such, apart from the merits and demerits of the stand of either side, we have noticed from the order passed by the learned Single Judge that the affidavits which have been filed by the appellant-GIDC and the policy which has been attached to the civil application ought to have been dealt with. Having not done so, we are of the opinion that since learned Single Judge had not availed an opportunity to deal with such circumstances, the order of remand and to take a fresh decision would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we hereby incline to set aside the impugned order with a consequential direction to re-consider the case for passing a fresh order. 8. It is trite law that non-dealing with the submission or the contention would be a relevant consideration for remanding the proceedings as has been held by the Apex Court in a decision in case of Kushuma Devi v. Shgeopati Devi (Dead) & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 744 and keeping in view the relevant observations contained in Para. 7, 8, 11 and 12, we are satisfied that the proceedings deserves to be remanded for taking a fresh decision in accordance with material on record of the writ petition. Relevant observations in the decision of the Apex Court since we have considered, we deem it proper to reproduce below: "7. The need to remand the case to the High Court has occasioned because from the perusal of the impugned order dated 27.07.2012 quoted above, we find that it is an unreasoned order. Relevant observations in the decision of the Apex Court since we have considered, we deem it proper to reproduce below: "7. The need to remand the case to the High Court has occasioned because from the perusal of the impugned order dated 27.07.2012 quoted above, we find that it is an unreasoned order. In other words, the High Court neither discussed the issues arising the case, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged by the parties and nor assigned any reason as to why it has dismissed the writ petition. 8. This Court has consistently laid down that every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passed by the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which 4 decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also the appellate/revisionary Court while examining the correctness of the order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the Court/Tribunal/Authority for reaching to such conclusion. (See-State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981) 4 SCC 129 , Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 222 , State of U.P. v. Battan & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 607 , Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 11 SCC 519 and State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568 ). 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh, out of which these appeals arise, for its disposal in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. 12. Since we have formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for its fresh disposal on merits, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case while deciding these appeals. The High Court will, therefore, decide the writ petition uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court in this order as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months." 9. The High Court will, therefore, decide the writ petition uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court in this order as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months." 9. In view of the aforesaid circumstance, without dealing with other contentions and in view of the broad submissions and the request made by learned counsel for the parties, we allow the present Letters Patent Appeal by setting aside the impugned order, with a request to learned Single Judge to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and on the basis of material which is placed on record by the respective parties. 10. Since the main appeal is disposed of by the present order, connected Civil Applications as well as Misc. Civil Application also stand disposed of.