ORDER : 1. Since the issues raised in both the captioned writ applications are the interrelated and the parties are also the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. We first take up the Special Civil Application No. 5041 of 2019. 3. By this writ application, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) Your Lordships may be pleased allow this petition. (b) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned clarification herein dated 13.12.2018 issued by the respondent Corporation. (c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to keep in abeyance any action in relation to giving effect to them impugned clarification dated 13.12.2018. (d) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to pass any other further orders are deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 4. The facts giving rise to the present writ application may be summarized as under. 5. The writ applicant is a Cooperative Society. As the name indicates the members of the Society are none other than those whose lands came to be acquired by the ONGC. It appears from the materials on record that the ONGC has a policy that 30% of the light vehicle contracts shall be reserved for the Society like the writ applicant. However, such policy came to be modified vide file No. 2(02)/6/CER/2018 dated 13th December 2018. As per the modified policy, the benefit of 30% reservation shall now not be confined only to the Society, but the same shall also be extended to the Association/Trust. The writ applicant is aggrieved by such decision of the ONGC to modify its earlier policy, as according to the writ applicant, the object behind 30% reservation is to ensure that all those who lost their lands in the acquisition proceedings get some further means of livelihood. 6. In such circumstances referred to above, the writ applicant-Society is here before this Court with the present writ application. 7. Mr. 6. In such circumstances referred to above, the writ applicant-Society is here before this Court with the present writ application. 7. Mr. Niral Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant would submit that the impugned modification is nothing, but a device adopted by the Corporation to do away with the judgment delivered by this High Court in the Special Civil Application No. 5894 of 2018 decided on 2nd May 2018. Mr. Mehta seeks to rely on the following observations made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the above referred judgment. We quote as under: “2.0...It is not in dispute that 30% of the total vehicles available which are needed for transportation are required to be reserved for those agriculturist who have lost their lands in acquisition for ONGC and whose lands were situated within the Mehsana Region. However, the dispute is with respect to the interse claim between those eligible land loser agriculturist. Identical question came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2863 of 2018 and after hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court issued the following directions in Para: “1. That the petitioner Society shall submit the necessary particulars/relevant documents with respect to their members/farmers, whose lands have been acquired by the Corporation more particularly with respect to those farmers/land losers whose lands were situated within the area of Ahmedabad Asset and whose lands have been acquired by the Corporation, to justify their claim for grant of benefit of 30% reservation including the necessary documents such as village form No. 7/12, village form No. 8A, land acquisition award etc. Such particulars to be submitted within a period of one week from today with the Corporation as well as with the office of Collector, Ahmedabad. Similar exercise also to be undertaken by the Corporation and the relevant particulars/documents shall be send to the office of the Collector, Ahmedabad so as to enable the Committee constituted for the aforesaid purpose to consider the genuineness and/or eligibility of such farmers/members/ land losers. Thus, such particulars also shall be submitted within a period of one week from today, as agreed. Thus, such particulars also shall be submitted within a period of one week from today, as agreed. The Corporation shall also call for and/or furnish the particulars from other cooperative Societies who are claiming such benefit, if any, so that the cases of other similarly situated farmers/land losers can also be considered for grant of benefit of 30% reservation. 2. That thereafter the Committee consisting of the representatives of the Corporation as mentioned in the communication dated 09.03.2018 viz. (1) Shri Sanjeev Kumar Chaturvedi, Deputy General Manager (HR), In-charge LAQ and (2) Shri Nirupam Sharma, Deputy General Manager (Logistics) and the members nominated by the Collector, Ahmedabad viz. (1) Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition Officer (ONGC) and Deputy Collector (N.A.) Ahmedabad shall scrutinize and/or consider the claim of the concerned members/farmers/land losers/beneficiaries of 30% reservation and take an appropriate decision within a period of three weeks from today and communicate the same to the Corporation, Ahmedabad Asset. On receipt of such report/decision the concerned eligible farmers/land losers whose lands situated within the limits of Ahmedabad Asset were acquired by the Corporation shall be granted the benefit of 30% reservation as per the policy (which is not in dispute).However, in the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly when with respect to the tender in question, for most of the vehicles, Letters of Intent are already issued and third party rights are created, it is directed that the benefit of 30% reservation shall be given from the next tender as it is reported that for more than 152 vehicles, fresh tenders shall be issued immediately in this year.” 3.0. There is broad consensus between the learned advocates for the respective parties to issue similar directions. However, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no. 4 being Trust, either the respondent no. 4 or its members are not eligible claiming the benefit of 30% reservation, which is disputed by Shri Viral Shah, learned advocate for the respondent no. 4. Therefore, it is requested that let the Collector may consider the same and take appropriate decision in accordance with the policy of the State Government/Central Government/ONGC. 4 being Trust, either the respondent no. 4 or its members are not eligible claiming the benefit of 30% reservation, which is disputed by Shri Viral Shah, learned advocate for the respondent no. 4. Therefore, it is requested that let the Collector may consider the same and take appropriate decision in accordance with the policy of the State Government/Central Government/ONGC. Therefore, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, present Special Civil Application is disposed of with following directions: (A) That the petitioner Society shall submit the necessary particulars/relevant documents with respect to their members/farmers, whose lands have been acquired by the Corporation more particularly with respect to those farmers/land losers whose lands were situated within the area of Ahmedabad Asset and whose lands have been acquired by the Corporation, to justify their claim for grant of benefit of 30% reservation including the necessary documents such as village form No. 7/12, village form No. 8A, land acquisition award etc. Such particulars to be submitted within a period of one week from today with the Corporation as well as with the office of Collector, Ahmedabad. Similar exercise also to be undertaken by the Corporation and the relevant particulars/documents shall be send to the office of the Collector, Ahmedabad so as to enable the Committee constituted for the aforesaid purpose to consider the genuineness and/or eligibility of such farmers/members/ land losers. Thus, such particulars also shall be submitted within a period of one week from today, as agreed. The Corporation shall also call for and/or furnish the particulars from other cooperative Societies who are claiming such benefit, if any, so that the cases of other similarly situated farmers/land losers can also be considered for grant of benefit of 30% reservation. Respondent no. 4 shall also submit the necessary particulars as above in respect of member of their trust viz. which lands have been acquired by ONGC, Mehsana Region. (B) That thereafter the Committee consisting of the representatives of the Corporation as mentioned in the communication viz. (1) Mr. Anurag GM (Civil) I/C LAQ and (2) Vijaykumar Gokhale GM (Production) and the members nominated by the Collector, Ahmedabad viz. which lands have been acquired by ONGC, Mehsana Region. (B) That thereafter the Committee consisting of the representatives of the Corporation as mentioned in the communication viz. (1) Mr. Anurag GM (Civil) I/C LAQ and (2) Vijaykumar Gokhale GM (Production) and the members nominated by the Collector, Ahmedabad viz. (1) Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition Officer (ONGC) and (2) Deputy Collector (Prant), Mehsana shall scrutinize and/or consider the claim of the concerned members/farmers/land losers/beneficiaries of 30% reservation and take an appropriate decision within a period of three weeks from today and communicate the same to the Corporation, Mehsana Asset. On receipt of such report/decision the concerned eligible farmers/land losers whose lands situated within the limits of Mehsana Asset were acquired by the Corporation shall be granted the benefit of 30% reservation as per the policy (which is not in dispute). While taking the final decision, the Collector shall also consider the objection on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no. 4 trust is not eligible and the case on behalf of the respondent no. 4 is that they are eligible and take appropriate decision in accordance with policy prevailing. While taking the final decision, the Collector may also take into consideration whether the allotment shall be on pro rata basis or not. For the aforesaid, in the joint meeting, it will be open for the representative of the petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 to put forward their case which may be considered by the Collector, Mehsana in accordance with policy prevailing. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within the period of four weeks from today and thereafter ONGC shall act on the basis of the said decision and award the contract to the concerned beneficiaries who are found to be eligible. 4.0. With the above directions and observations, present Special Civil Application stands disposed of.” 8. According to Mr. Mehta, if the Association/Trust is also to be extended the benefit of 30% reservation, then the very object with which the policy came to be framed would get frustrated. To put in other words, according to Mr. Mehta, if the Associations/Trusts are also to be extended the benefit, then the benefit of 30% reservation would be divided between the Society/Association/Trust. Mr. To put in other words, according to Mr. Mehta, if the Associations/Trusts are also to be extended the benefit, then the benefit of 30% reservation would be divided between the Society/Association/Trust. Mr. Mehta would submit that the original intent behind the policy as recorded and finalized on 8th August 2014 was to extend the reservation benefit to the Cooperative Society only. 9. Mr. Mehta, while seeking to challenge the modified policy, he has invoked the doctrine of legitimate expectation. He would submit that he is invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation having regard to the object with which 30% reservation was being earlier provided to the Society. 10. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Mehta prays that the new policy as modified vide Annexure ‘A’ Page-28 dated 13th December 2018 be declared as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and dehors the dictum as laid by this High Court in the above referred decision. 11. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Akshat Khare, the learned counsel appearing for the ONGC and Mr. Ayaan Patel, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the State respondents. 12. Mr. Khare, the learned counsel would submit that the modified policy of the Corporation is in no manner violative of any of the fundamental rights or other legal rights of the writ applicant-Society. Mr. Khare invited the attention of this Court to the averments made in Para 18 of the reply filed on behalf of the ONGC, which reads thus: “I respectfully say and submit that as per the initial policy dated 08.08.2014, it was decided in the said policy to extend the benefit of 30% reservation in light vehicle contracts which was prevailing in Ankleshwar Asset to other Assets of ONGC i.e. Mehsana and Ahmedabad. Under the said policy, it was desired to adopt the cooperative approach in extending the benefit of 30% reservation. Therefore, the policy has not confined the benefit only to co-operative societies but the essence of the policy is to grant light vehicle contract in co-operative manner. However due to various differential interpretations of the said policy raised by the various stakeholders more particularly by petitioner, a clarificatory note was moved within MO&PNG against which the MO&PNG has clarified that the said benefit of 30% reservation is required to be extended to the association/trust also. However due to various differential interpretations of the said policy raised by the various stakeholders more particularly by petitioner, a clarificatory note was moved within MO&PNG against which the MO&PNG has clarified that the said benefit of 30% reservation is required to be extended to the association/trust also. The said clarification was circulated from the Head Office of ONGC vide a note/office order dated 13.12.2018 and the same has already been placed on record at Annexure A (page No. 28) by the petitioner. Thus, after the clarification from the Ministry, the policy for extending the benefit of 30% reservation is not only confined to any cooperative society but it can be extended to any Association or Trust also. Therefore, in light of clarification of the original policy dated 08.08.2014 and the decision of the committee to award the contract as per the direction/decision of MO&PNG from time to time, the respondent No. 3 Ld. Collector, Mehsana had once again clarified vide his letter dated 31.12.2018 by allowing ONGC to act in accordance with the policy formulated by MO&PNG. The said letter dated 31.12.2018 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/6.” 13. Mr. Khare also invited the attention of this Court to the additional affidavit, more particularly, the averments made in Para 5 therein, which reads thus: “5. I further say and submit that pursuant to the said record note of MOM dated 04.04 2014, ONGC asset at Mehsana and Ahmedabad had adopted the procedure prevalent in Ankleshwar Asset for awarding 30% light vehicle to those farmers who have lost their lands under ONGC's acquisition Thus, it is evident from the above undisputed facts that there is no policy approved by Board of Director of ONGC to award 30% light vehicle contract to land losers. It is further evident from the above record note that it was the desire of the then Hon’ble Minister to adopt prevalent practise of Ankleshwar asset in Mehsana and Ahmedabad asset which was implemented in bonafide spirit only with a view to provide an additional helping hand to the land losers who have lost their lands under ONGC’s acquisition. Thus, the test for awarding the said benefit is that the similarly situated persons should be considered for awarding of light vehicle contract who had actually lost their lands. Thus, the test for awarding the said benefit is that the similarly situated persons should be considered for awarding of light vehicle contract who had actually lost their lands. It is pertinent to note herein that ONGC had compensated such land losers adequately as per the statutory provisions and on rate fixed by Special Land Acquisition or Ld. Reference Court or Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court as the case may be. Thus, the present petitioner claiming contract of 30% light vehicle contract as a right is nothing but misuse/misinterpretation of additional welfare practice of ONGC. The land losers cannot claim such 30% reservation as a matter of right because they had already been adequately compensated by ONGC. Thus additional voluntary benefit initiated by ONGC cannot be a matter for invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court by present petitioner.” 14. Having regard to the aforesaid, Mr. Khare prays that there being no merit in the present writ application, the same may be rejected. 15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the writ applicant is entitled to question the modified policy. 16. We are of the view that there is no basis for the writ applicant – Society to question the modified policy of the Corporation in any manner. If a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to denial of rights guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or biased, gross abuse or violation of principles of natural justice, the same can be questioned on the well-known grounds attracting Article 14 of the Constitution. However, a claim based on mere legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these principles. It can be one of the grounds to consider but the Court must lift the veil and see whether the decision is violative of these principles warranting interference. 17. A person who puts forward his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the first instance, must satisfy that there is a foundation and thus has the locus-standi to make such a claim. In considering the same, several factors which give rise to such legitimate expectation must be present. The decision taken by the authority must be found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and not taken in public interest. In considering the same, several factors which give rise to such legitimate expectation must be present. The decision taken by the authority must be found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and not taken in public interest. If it is a question of policy, even by way of change of the policy, the Court may refuse to interfere with such a decision. 18. We are not impressed by the submission of Mr. Mehta that the modification in the policy is nothing, but a device adopted by the Corporation to dilute the judgment delivered by this Court in the Special Civil Application No. 5894 of 2018 decided on 2nd May 2018. We may only clarify that when the said judgment came to be delivered on 2nd May 2018, the modified policy was not in force. It is in such circumstances that the Coordinate Bench took the view that the benefit of 30% reservation should go only to the Society and not to the Associations/Trusts. Later, if the Corporation, as an instrumentality of State within Article 12 of the Constitution, thought fit to change its policy and decided to extend the benefit also to the Associations/Trusts, the same by itself cannot be termed as per se illegal, or violative of any of provisions of the Constitution. We do not find anything arbitrary or unreasonable in the modified policy. It is so apparent that the writ applicant does not want to share the benefit with anyone else and that is reason why they are redressing the grievance as regards the modified policy. 19. In view of the aforesaid, this writ application fails and is hereby rejected. SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1177 OF 2019: 20. We shall now look into the connected writ application between the same parties i.e. the Special Civil Application No. 1177 of 2019. In this writ application, the writ application- Society has prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this petition. (b) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents Corporation, specially the Mehsana Assets of the said respondent Corporation, not to allot any portion of the 30% of the total number of vehicles required in the Tender No. E-16WC-17002, E-16WC-17006 and E-16WC-17008 to the respondent No. 4. (c) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent ONGC to cancel any and all allotment of any reservation benefit to the respondent No. 4 herein. (c) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent ONGC to cancel any and all allotment of any reservation benefit to the respondent No. 4 herein. (c1) Your Lordship may be pleased to quash and set aside Notification of Award being Ref No. MHN/MM/LGTS/CONTRACT/317/2016-17/178, MHN/MM/LGTS/CONTRACT/ 251/2016-17/198 and MHN/MM/LGTS/CONTRACT/309/2016-17/188 dated 04.01.2019 issued to the respondent No. 4 organization. (c2) Your Lordship may be pleased to quash and set aside the Minutes of Meeting dated 13.12.2018 (Annexure J colly) insofar as the said minutes has affirmed the eligibility of respondent No. 4 to be granted the benefit of 30% reservation in vehicular contracts in lieu of the clarification dated 13.12.2018 issued by the respondent ONGC. (d) Your Lordship may appoint a suitable committee to inquire into the actions of the respondent District Administration herein in approving the eligibility of respondent No. 4 herein. (e) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent Corporation to stay and keep in abeyance any and all forms execution of Notice of Award to the respondent No. 4 herein in relation to Tender No. E-16WC-17002, E-16WC-17006 and E-16WC-17008. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE (e2) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent Corporation to stay and keep in abeyance any issuance of Notification of Award to the respondent No. 4 herein, in relation to Tender E-16WC-17002, E-16WC-17006 and E-16WC-17008, so as to stop the said respondent from raising any claims in equity in terms of having made investments for execution of the NOA’s. (f) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to pass any other further orders as are deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 21. We have given more than a fair idea as regards the subject matter of the present litigation while rejecting the Special Civil Application No. 5041 of 2019 and in such circumstances, we need not delve much into the facts. In this writ application, the challenge by the Society is to the decision of the Corporation to award the contract of light vehicle in favour of the respondent No. 4. It is quite interesting to note that the writ applicant is the Gujarat State Land Loser Farmer’s Labour Cooperative Society Limited. In this writ application, the challenge by the Society is to the decision of the Corporation to award the contract of light vehicle in favour of the respondent No. 4. It is quite interesting to note that the writ applicant is the Gujarat State Land Loser Farmer’s Labour Cooperative Society Limited. Whereas the respondent No. 4 is the Gujarat State Land Losers Association Trust. Whether it is a Society or a Trust, the members are none other than those whose lands have been acquired by the Corporation. We dispose of this writ application on a short ground that the contract awarded by the Corporation to the respondent No. 4 is to expire in January 2022. The contract was for a period of three years and the same will come to an end within next four months. In such circumstances, this writ application fails and is hereby rejected.