JUDGMENT : ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the appellant-original petitioner against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 04.09.2019 in Special Civil Application No. 7865 of 2019. 2. The background of facts of present appeal is that appellant-original petitioner is a Nodal Agency appointed by the respondent-State Government and the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to implement the Scheme framed under “The Regulations for the Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of the Slums, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations”). The said Regulations have been framed with an object to construct a multistoried building for rehabilitation of slum dwellers of Final Plot No. 282 having Town Planning Scheme No. 20 of Mouje Navrangpura, Near Gulbai Tekra, Ahmedabad. Under the rehabilitation scheme, the respondent-corporation and the State Government are under an obligation to prepare the list of eligible slum dwellers and appellant had to remove 75% of slum dwellers from the final plot for development and implement the scheme for construction of multistoried residential units. 3. It is the case of the appellant that some of the slum dwellers of the aforementioned final plot filed Civil Suits against the appellant seeking relief that possession of the slum dwellers from the land in question may not be disturbed without due process of law and along with suit, notice of motion was also moved seeking interim relief. The learned City Civil Judge before whom suits were filed being Civil Suit Nos. 2905/2013 and 3075/2013 had dismissed the notice of motion as a result of it, said slum dwellers of respective suits (plaintiffs of the respective suits) have preferred Appeal from Order before this Court in Appeal From Order Nos. 133/2015 and 134/2015 and after due hearing, said appeals came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.05.2016. However, while disposing of the said Appeal from Orders, certain observations have been made by the learned Single Judge, which have given rise to passing of an order dated 01.10.2016 by the respondent authority to evict slum dwellers from the said final plot. Since it was practically impossible to evict such large numbers of slum dwellers, appellant was directed to submit documentary evidence of other slum dwellers claiming residence under the Scheme of 2010. According to appellant, said order was a defective order and practically not possible to be obeyed. Since it was practically impossible to evict such large numbers of slum dwellers, appellant was directed to submit documentary evidence of other slum dwellers claiming residence under the Scheme of 2010. According to appellant, said order was a defective order and practically not possible to be obeyed. As a result, appellant submitted representations before the authority on 16.08.2016, 06.10.2016 and 18.01.2017 for granting permission to proceed with the rehabilitation project. According to appellant, no decision was taken by the authorities upon such representation and subsequently vide order dated 21.09.2015, this Court directed respondent-corporation to carry out the survey with regard to the eligible slum dwellers under the scheme and pursuant to said order, respondent authority with a team comprising of Assistant City Engineer (Housing Project), Assistant Vigilance Officer, Town Development Inspector along with other representatives of the Slum Society/Association has visited the plot in question on several occasion namely on 21.09.2015, 21.10.2015, 02.11.2015, 10.08.2016, 19.10.2016 and thereby completed the inspection for which according to the appellant the videography was also recorded. 4. It is the case of the appellant that thereafter on 21.01.2016, on broad consensus being arrived at between the parties, this Court had directed the slum dwellers to submit the list of project affected persons (who are eligible) to the corporation on or before 03.02.2016 and same was to be submitted along with requisite documents and corporation was directed to scrutinize and examine the said documents. Taking note of the fact that corporation had received 782 applications and same had been scrutinized by corporation, out of which prima facie 108 applicants were found to be genuine, this Court permitted the corporation to seek for original documents from those 108 eligible persons, who were found to be prima facie eligible and in turn directed the appellant to furnish said original documents within a period of 10 days. 5. The grievance of the appellant is that since 2015 till date of filing petition, authority had not prepared the list of eligible slum dwellers and by causing undue delay it has resulted in project being held up. Despite same, a meeting was convened on 17.02.2017 by Slum Rehabilitation Committee, which in turn proposed to cancel the work allotted to the appellant and consequent resolution also came to be passed. Despite same, a meeting was convened on 17.02.2017 by Slum Rehabilitation Committee, which in turn proposed to cancel the work allotted to the appellant and consequent resolution also came to be passed. According to appellant, said resolution dated 17.02.2017 is passed mainly on the grounds that: (i) slum dwellers are claiming there are more than 700 houses, (ii) slum dwellers are not cooperating for verification of the documents, (iii) it is practically not possible to construct 700 houses in view of the Regulations of Scheme, 2010, and (iv) the project policy should be transferred from policy of year 2010 to the policy of year 2013 so that Government can have financial benefits as well. According to appellant, said resolution was uncalled for in view of the fact that there was no delay or inaction on the part of appellant in any form. In fact, on the basis of authorities own station survey made during February, 2012 actual slum dwellers were around 503 and on account of road widening having taken place during February, 2013 on account of BRTS-corridor approximately 105 huts were acquired and as such there are only 398 slum dwellers, whereas in the year 2017 corporation is contending that there are about 700 claimants. 6. Appellant has further asserted that even relevant papers which were sent to Hon'ble Chief Minister also indicate that there was no clarity about exact number of slum dwellers who are eligible for allotment of houses. The grievance of the appellant that though there is no inaction on the part of the appellant work order issued to appellant has been cancelled and the authorities intention to shift the project from Slum Regulations Scheme, 2010 to the Scheme of 2013. In this background, appellant has contended that no opportunity was extended to the appellant or any chance was given to represent and no show cause notice was issued and as such impugned decision is in-flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. Contending left with no other alternate, appellant is said to have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for the reliefs which are set out in the paragraph No. 28 of the Special Civil Application, which reads as under: “28. Be pleased to issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, Your Lordships may be pleased to: (A) Admit and allow this Petition. Be pleased to issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, Your Lordships may be pleased to: (A) Admit and allow this Petition. (B) Quash and set aside the order the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by Respondent Authority. (C) Direct the Respondent authority to complete all necessary formalities within a time bound period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. (D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition your lordships may be pleased to stay the further implementation, execution, operation and enforcement of the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by Respondent Authority. (E) Ad-interim ex-parte relief in terms of prayers (D) may be granted. (F) Such other and further reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice be granted.” 7. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by arriving at a conclusion that it is not a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction since serious disputed questions of facts were involved by order dated 04.09.2019. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal. 8. The present Letters Patent Appeal appears to have been entertained initially vide order dated 15.10.2019 and after completion of pleadings appeal has come up for consideration and learned senior advocates appearing for respective sides have requested this Court to dispose of the appeal finally pleading urgency. During pendency of this appeal, some of the slum dwellers stated to be affected about any order that is being passed about 732 in number have filed Civil Application No. 1 of 2000 for being impleaded as party to the present proceedings (who were not parties before the learned Single Judge). Said application is also heard along with Letters Patent Appeal. 9. Mr. Yatin N. Oza, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Ashish B. Desai, learned advocate for appellant has vehemently contended that action on the part of respondent authority is not only unjust and arbitrary but reflects clear mala-fides and also reflects favouritism. It has been contended that after extensive hearing, co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with Appeal From Orders had specifically found that only those project affected persons were eligible for allotment of houses and thereby corporation was directed to provide a final list of number of hutments, who would be eligible for such allotment. It has been contended that after extensive hearing, co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with Appeal From Orders had specifically found that only those project affected persons were eligible for allotment of houses and thereby corporation was directed to provide a final list of number of hutments, who would be eligible for such allotment. According to appellant, no proper scrutiny is made by any authority and no steps have been taken to remove or evict or dispossess persons from illegal occupation in any form by the authority. Contending it was the duty on the part of authorities to evict those persons, so as to give way for the appellant to implement the project for which work was assigned, but there was clear inaction on the part of the authority in this regard which and thereby preventing the appellant from proceeding ahead with the project. According to Mr. Oza, learned senior advocate appearing for appellant, while taking impugned action no adequate opportunity was given to the appellant nor any hearing was given and a unilateral decision was taken which aspect has been considered while granting interim prayer as well. 10. Mr. Oza, learned senior advocate has submitted that the order impugned is passed, as if appellant has not carried out the work, though record is self explanatory which would clearly indicate the inaction of respondent authority itself and therefore, cancellation which has taken place vide communication dated 14.03.2019 is not only unjust and arbitrary but also violative of principles of natural justice. Mr. Oza, learned senior advocate has submitted that even work order has been given to the appellant way back in the month of September, 2013 in which it was clearly indicated that redevelopment permission has been granted with a request to follow the procedure for approval of plan and other procedure. By inviting the attention of this Court to work order issued to the appellant on 03.09.2013, he would contend that a dispute had arisen with regard to number of eligible persons which was subject matter of Appeal From Order Nos. 133/2015 and 134/2015, learned Single Judge while examining said appeals has clearly found that scrutiny of all the applications requires to be undertaken. 133/2015 and 134/2015, learned Single Judge while examining said appeals has clearly found that scrutiny of all the applications requires to be undertaken. As a result of it, last opportunity to all applicants, who were 782 in numbers, came to be granted an opportunity by calling upon them to tender requisite documents before the corporation in view of relevant Policy of 2010 and corporation in turn was directed to scrutinize all such documents to ascertain the eligible slum dwellers, who are falling within the entitlement zone under the scheme. It was also clarified in said order that in the event of appellants in the said Appeal were not submitting documents, then authority was granted liberty to initiate appropriate action. It was also clarified that no personal notices were required to be given. He would contend though said order came to be passed on 05.05.2016 the respondent authority has not properly taken note of directions issued therein and records disclose a clear inaction which is now tried to be shifted upon appellants to justify their illegal action. He would also submit the Additional City Engineer, Housing Project has surprisingly indicated that after verifying 108 I-Cards of the appellant, the scrutiny procedure is stated to have slowed down. 11. Mr. Oza, learned senior advocate has further submitted that under Regulations/Scheme of 2010 nowhere an obligation has been cast on the appellant to remove or evict any slum dwellers since it was within the domain of the respondent authority and they having not taken any action now an attempt is made to shift the burden on the appellant to justify their illegal action. Mr. Oza, learned senior advocate has further submitted that after issuing specific work in favour of appellant before cancellation thereof no adequate opportunity was given to the appellant and apparently said action is violative of principles of natural justice and as such on this count alone, reliefs prayed for ought to have been granted by the learned Single Judge and same having not been done, impugned order requires to be set at naught. The learned senior advocate has further submitted that disputed questions of fact does not arise in view of fact that Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has issued “Rajachitthi” in which a specific figure of 503 has been mentioned as is reflecting in the said permission dated 16.06.2014 and out of the said 503, 105 were already removed on account of BRTS project and thereby if 105 is to be deducted, the final eligible persons would clearly comes on record. Instead of examining such issues which are apparent, learned Single Judge has not properly dealt with the issue and has refrained from exercising extraordinary jurisdiction which error deserves to be corrected in present appeal. Mr. Oza, learned senior advocate has submitted that stand taken by the authority is not supported by cogent reasons as a result of this, impugned order deserves to be quashed by granting consequential reliefs as prayed for in the appeal. 12. As against this, Mr. Maulin Rawal, learned senior advocate appearing with Mr. Satyam Chhaya, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2-corporation has vehemently opposed the appeal and has prayed for dismissal of this appeal. Mr. Rawal, learned senior advocate has also contended that after proper scrutiny, appropriate decision has been taken by respondent, which is not only in the public interest but also in the interest of tender process itself. By referring to Policy of 2010, reflecting on Page-74, Mr. Rawal, learned senior advocate has drawn the attention of this Court to the duties of the developer and by referring to Clause 9.4, it has been contended that it was obligatory on the part of the developer to initiate steps for securing consent of at least 75% of persons/hutment dwellers and attention of this Court has also been drawn to a specific provision reflecting on page 80. It has further been contended that even if petitioner is aggrieved, then there is an alternate remedy provided for redressal of grievance, which is reflecting on page 83 and by referring to these clauses, a contention is raised that none of the provisions, as indicated under the tender conditions, have been observed by the appellant. As a result, learned Single Judge has rightly refused the relief to the appellant. 13. Mr. As a result, learned Single Judge has rightly refused the relief to the appellant. 13. Mr. Rawal, learned senior advocate has further contended that according to the appellant himself, at relevant point of time in the year 2012, 346 persons were indicated in the statement filed by very appellant in Clause 9, in application dated 13.02.2012 and as such, assertion of the appellant that there were only 108 eligible persons is a figure far from truth, on the contrary misleading in nature. According to Mr. Rawal, learned senior advocate appellant did not have consent of 75% of total number of persons and as such, by referring to remarks column, reflecting on Page 174/A, a contention is raised that not only misleading assertion is tried to be projected before the Court and there also appears to be seriously disputed questions of fact arising. It has been further contended that in the scheme itself, nowhere duty has been cast upon the corporation to remove or vacate persons either by force or by operation of law. In fact, work order was issued way back on 03.09.2013, which appellant had miserably failed to respond to or commence the work in response thereto and as such, no equitable relief of any nature deserves to be granted in favour of the appellant and he would justify the order of learned Single Judge contending appellant has rightly not been extended any relief. 14. Mr. Rawal, learned senior advocate has further contended that even Rajachitthi (Building Permission) dated 16.06.2014, reflecting on Page 135 of the appeal memorandum would disclose number of units as 503 and appellant had agreed to construct said number of units, consisting of ground + 4th floor and this fact being well within the knowledge of appellant from the initial stage has not complied with the same and appellant has not even made efforts to construct either 346 or 108 units in any manner. Rajachitthi dated 16.6.2014 itself is making it very clear as to how many units is to be constructed and this was well within the knowledge of appellant. 15. Rajachitthi dated 16.6.2014 itself is making it very clear as to how many units is to be constructed and this was well within the knowledge of appellant. 15. Further, it has been pointed out that, Condition No. (4) reflecting in Rajachitthi mandates construction was to be completed within a period of one year else it would automatically lapse and this condition was also well within the knowledge of petitioner and as such, there is no escape for the appellant to contend otherwise. In addition to this, Mr. Rawal, learned senior advocate has also drawn attention of this Court to the permission by referring to Page 23-E dated 23.8.2013 and has brought to the notice of this Court Clauses 4, 7 and 11 to contend that by virtue of these clauses also permission granted in favour of appellant has lapsed on account of appellant himself and there is hardly any reason for appellant to agitate and one of the clauses clearly empower the authority to take appropriate decision in this regard, which has rightly been taken after due and conscious deliberations and examination of the issue. Hence, there is no reason for appellant to raise any grievance. 16. Mr. Rawal, learned senior advocate has further contended that it is not at the whims of the authority or at the dictates of anybody, some decision is taken. In fact, detailed grounds for cancellation have been evaluated by Commissioner of corporation himself on 01.03.2017 as reflecting on Page 139-A, which also clearly indicate that it is a conscious decision taken by the authority itself with proper application of mind and after examining pros and cons of the situation. It has been pointed out clearly that after such grounds of cancellation having been drawn, same was to be sent to the State authority for its approval and while taking ultimate decision and during passage of time, appellant has been extended more than adequate opportunity of hearing, including proper presentation, and it is only thereafter in due compliance of principles of natural justice, decision has been taken, which cannot be said to be in any way either suffering from vice of non-application of mind or violative of principles of natural justice. In fact, upon overall consideration of the material on record and the ground reality that exists and after considering the explanation and granting opportunity to the appellant, it was found that Policy of 2013 was more beneficial. If appellant could have completed his obligation, probably the situation might have been different. But, here is a case in which in Policy of 2010, was at a very elementary stage and appellant was considered in that zone and even building permission was granted as well as work order was issued. However, appellant had not moved an inch further, which has resulted into cancellation of work order and by that time, Policy of 2013 had been pronounced by the State, which was found to be more beneficial and as such, after considering overall circumstances prevailing on record, there is no escapement for the appellant to contend or raise any grievance with regard to applicability of 2013 policy. In fact, a contention is taken that while taking ultimate decision and prior to arriving at a conclusion for cancelling the work order issued in favour of petitioner, enough opportunity of presentation as well as hearing was not extended to the petitioner by the authority, which is contrary to records since order of cancellation has been approved by the State authority right upto the level of office of the Chief Minister and as such, when it has been found that it is in the overall public interest as well as beneficial to the large section of poor strata of society, a decision has been taken and approved by the highest authority, which has resulted into impugned order being passed. 17. It has been pointed out before the Court that decision, which is impugned in the Special Civil Application, is a conscious decision taken after due deliberations and examination of the issue at great length and not only the corporation but also State authority had found that such decision was inevitable in overall interest of public and same is taken with due application of mind. Our attention has also been drawn to the minutes of the meeting which took place, reflecting on 147/A of original records disclosing that said meeting was held, in the pursuance of as many as 17 members, and there was a specific examination of the issue with regard to hutments of Gulbai Tekra, as referred to Page 147-E and as such, it is not the solitary act of any authority or individual decision, but it is the collective decision taken consciously and has passed through various levels before communicating the same to the appellant. Firstly, Municipal Corporation has evaluated the grounds for cancellation, then State Government has also examined the same and the decision has passed through the level of the office of the Chief Minister and also further, analyzed by the committee, consisting of 17 members, and then ultimate decision has been taken which undisputedly was after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant and as such, when there seems to be a clear and conscious analysis of the overall circumstances and then decision has been taken, in no circumstances can it be said to be arbitrary, erroneous or illegal in any form. Hence, it is not open for the appellant to raise plea of arbitrariness or violation of principles of natural justice or any kind of mala-fide. It is rather a self invited situation by the appellant himself by not initiating the process for identifying persons eligible for allotment after issuance of work order and as such, there is hardly any reason for the appellant to raise any plea in this regard. Hence, no case is made out by the appellant-petitioner to assail the impugned order. 18. Mr. Rawal, learned senior advocate has further submitted that on account of impugned decision taken, not only public interest of large section of poor persons is being taken care of but it is also benevolent to public exchequer, the corporation and it would result in a healthy competition amongst similarly placed persons. He would contend fresh tender has already been invited and it is not the case that in the process of intended fresh tender, petitioner would not to be considered. On the contrary, if petitioner is inclined to opt for bidding process, it is always open for petitioner also to compete with other bidders as well. He would contend fresh tender has already been invited and it is not the case that in the process of intended fresh tender, petitioner would not to be considered. On the contrary, if petitioner is inclined to opt for bidding process, it is always open for petitioner also to compete with other bidders as well. On the contrary, by adopting 2010 Policy, no tender was inviteded, but now, in a very transparent manner, tender process is being commenced in consonance with the policy of 2013, which is more beneficial to one and all. Hence, it is merely an act of shifting of from one policy to the other, which conscious policy decision has rightly not been interfered with by the learned Single Judge. In fact, there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner in any manner if this policy is to be observed in carrying out the tender process since petitioner also will be given a chance to participate. It has also been submitted that fresh tender process has already been commenced in consonance with the policy of 2013. It is not being taken forward but for pending litigation and with due respect to the Court process, same has been kept in abeyance voluntarily so as to avoid any future complication. When there is no absolute right in favour of petitioner nor there is any breach of any fundamental right, there is hardly any case made out by the appellant-petitioner calling for any interference. 19. Mr. Rawal, learned senior advocate has further submitted that this subsequent process is in consonance with 2013 Policy and it is a welcome step to cater to the need of large section of society as compared to previous one. This fact has been fortified by filing of Civil Application by as many as 700 hutment dwellers who are residing since number of years and as such, this subsequent policy is intending to construct not only ground + 4th floor but ground + 7 storied construction, which would take care of large number of persons than previous one and this figure of 700, as indicated in the Civil Application, itself is sufficient enough to justify the action of authority taken in due public interest. Hence, he prays for the Letters Patent Appeal being dismissed. 20. Mr. Hence, he prays for the Letters Patent Appeal being dismissed. 20. Mr. Rawal, learned senior advocate has further contended that a bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge makes it very clear that same has been passed after due application of mind; after considering every circumstance and thereafter arrived at a just conclusion which cannot be said to be suffering from any vice of perversity or non-application of mind or illegality. He would contend that on the basis of very same material, if a particular view has been taken by the learned Single Judge, in absence of any distinguishable material said view may not be substituted. Hence, by referring to paragraphs 13, 14 and 16 of the order of learned Single Judge, a contention is raised that order passed by the learned Single Judge in no way can be said to be irrational or perverse in any form and since that be so, there is hardly any reason to take a different view on the basis of very same material available on record. 21. Additionally, Mr. Rawal, learned senior advocate has further submitted that relevant provisions of GDCR of 2017, copies of which has been placed on record and by referring to Clauses 2.5 and 5.5.2, a contention is raised that on account of inaction on the part of appellant himself, there is automatic cancellation of building permission. Hence, no legal right can be generated out of inaction of the appellant himself. Hence, when permission has already lapsed, not in existence, no equitable relief can be claimed by the appellant or granted by the Court in this regard. 22. Mr. Rawal, learned senior advocate has further pointed out that this litigation has stuck up the entire project which was intended by an authority and practically on account of this litigation, appellant has hampered the development, deprived the poor persons from their due benefits which are intended to be passed on by the authority to eligible persons. Right from 2012 under the guise of filing Civil Suits, Appeal from Orders as well as Writ Petition, this process of tender has been hampered and as such he contends that appeal deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 23. Mr. Right from 2012 under the guise of filing Civil Suits, Appeal from Orders as well as Writ Petition, this process of tender has been hampered and as such he contends that appeal deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 23. Mr. Rawal, learned senior advocate has also submitted that petition not only contains seriously disputed questions of fact but it is also in the realm of contractual dispute and a such, in view of the settled position of law, judicial review has rightly not been undertaken with regard to the dispute which relates to contract and as such, no error is committed by the learned Single Judge in any form to dismiss the petition. Hence, he contends no case is made out by petitioner to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal. 24. Mr. Rawal, learned senior advocate with a view to substantiate his submissions has referred to and relied upon the following decisions: (1) Small Scale Industries Manufactures Association vs. Union of India, (2021) 8 SCC 511 (2) Essar Steel Limited vs. Union of India, (2016) 11 SCC 1 (3) Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 1 (4) Michigam Rubber (India) vs. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 (5) Bajal Hindustan Limited vs. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprise Limited, (2011) 1 SCC 640 (6) M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237 (7) Aligarh Muslim University vs. Monsoor Ali Khan, (2000) 7 SCC 529 (8) Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orrisa, (2006) 14 SCC 517 (9) Radhakishana Agarwal vs. State of Bihar, (1977) 3 SCC 457 25. In rejoinder to the stand taken by the learned senior advocate appearing for the corporation, Mr. Oza, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant has opposed the stand of the corporation and has contended that duties of developer is very much spelt out in the Policy of 2010 and by referring to Clause 9, reflecting on Page-79, it has been contended that it was never the obligation of the appellant being a developer to remove the hutments or to clear the plot. The only requirement of the appellant is to seek the consent of atleast 75% of occupants of the existing slum being considered under the scheme. The only requirement of the appellant is to seek the consent of atleast 75% of occupants of the existing slum being considered under the scheme. This consent had to contain willingness to join the slum rehabilitation scheme and come together to form a Cooperative Housing Society of eligible hutments through resolution to that effect and what should be the contents of said resolution are also stipulated. Thus, referring to Clause 9.4, Mr. Oza, learned senior advocate has submitted that consent of 75% was already obtained and forwarded to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for taking further steps. 26. It has further been submitted that every required act was done by the appellant in respect of 2010 Policy and upon satisfying itself the authority had executed an agreement also, so much so, prior to such agreement respondent-corporation has appointed Mahila Seva NGO to find out the exact number of claimants under the scheme and the said survey being undertaken by the NGO has reflected only 503 eligible claimants and said report was also submitted to the Corporation which was part of the record. Mr. Oza, learned senior advocate has also submitted that out of the total figure 105 slum dwellers were already removed on account of BRTS road widening and were given resettlement elsewhere which is not in dispute and only 319 slum dwellers were left out and if this figure is to be assumed there was definitely compliance of consent of 75% slum dwellers and corporation also proceeded on that footing and had entered into agreement with the appellant. In the Appeal from Orders which were conducted before the learned Single Judge which have already attained its finality, a stand was taken by the corporation, but for the litigation the corporation could have undertaken the process pursuant to the agreement which had been entered into. Hence, he would contend when it is not the fault of the appellant in any way, corporation has taken an advantage of the said circumstances prevailing and has terminated the agreement. In fact by referring to the observations made in the Appeal from Order Nos. 133/2015 and 134/2015 dated 05.05.2016, it clearly emerges that prima facie only 108 eligible persons were found with original documents and this observation is found in paragraph 3 and there is absolutely no justification for the respondent authority to pass the impugned order. In fact by referring to the observations made in the Appeal from Order Nos. 133/2015 and 134/2015 dated 05.05.2016, it clearly emerges that prima facie only 108 eligible persons were found with original documents and this observation is found in paragraph 3 and there is absolutely no justification for the respondent authority to pass the impugned order. In fact by referring to paragraph 5 of said order, a statement which was made by the learned senior advocate representing respondent-corporation to the effect that respondents, namely, the corporation and the authorities are not in a position to implement the statutory scheme and that respondents are not using any force only because of pendency of these appeals. So, in a situation like this how the respondent authority can take a stand that appellant has not fulfilled his part of the obligation. In fact the observations which are made in paragraph 7 are also sufficient enough to nullify the stand of the respondent authority and as such in the absence of any fault on the part of appellant there is hardly any reason for taking such technical plea by the respondent authority. In fact, the Rajachitthi i.e. Building Permission was issued in favour of the appellant for 503 units vide communication dated 16.06.2014 and only on account of issue having been struck up in the litigation, no fault can be found with the appellant in any manner. According to learned senior advocate, this circumstance has been capitalized by the authority to come out from their contractual obligations. The chronology of the dates if to be compared, it would be quite clear that in an arbitrary manner the authority has passed the impugned communication otherwise on record of the respondent-corporation the appellant had already tendered even a consent of approximately 1100 and odd slum dwellers and for that a request was also made by the appellant to scrutinize and after the said exercise having been undertaken Rajachitthi/Building Permission was granted for construction of 503 residential units. 27. 27. The learned Senior Counsel has further contended by referring to Page 80 and has submitted that respondent authority has no power to change or alter the decision even by virtue of specific Clause 11.4 of the Scheme of 2010, the proviso to this Clause 11.4 is clearly indicating that once having agreed upon and issue the Building Permission, there is no power to change the decision, it is only on account of 6 contingencies which are prescribed in proviso of Clause 11.4, the decision might be taken but here it is not a case falling within such Clause of 11.4 and as such action on the part of the authority is thoroughly uncalled for, arbitrary and smacks of mala-fides. 28. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that a reference is also made of Clause 19 of the Scheme of 2010 and has vehemently contended that there is no redressal grievance forum available to the appellant. It is only meant for the slum dwellers and not for the appellant and as such learned senior advocate has tried to divert the attention of this Court by making erroneous submissions. By referring to Clause 19, it has been submitted that if any grievance related to benefits available under this Scheme, then eligible slum dweller would be entitled to lodge his claim/complaint before the prescribed authority and as such a bare reading of this Clause 19 clearly indicate that there is no alternative mechanism available for the appellant to ventilate the grievance and it is only this petition under Article 226 the remedy which was attempted to be exhausted and therefore, there is hardly any justification in raising such plea of alternate remedy. 29. The learned senior advocate has further submitted that if the figure of 503 residential units which were sanctioned for which building permission was also granted on 16.06.2014, it would indicate that appellant had a definite consent of more than 75% slum dwellers. Since, 105 slum dwellers were removed and alternatively accommodated elsewhere, the left-out persons were 398, whereas undisputedly, the appellant had 386 slum dwellers to be dealt with for seeking consent and this was very much given to the corporation prior to Building Permission being granted and as such stand taken by the authority is clearly ill-founded. 30. Since, 105 slum dwellers were removed and alternatively accommodated elsewhere, the left-out persons were 398, whereas undisputedly, the appellant had 386 slum dwellers to be dealt with for seeking consent and this was very much given to the corporation prior to Building Permission being granted and as such stand taken by the authority is clearly ill-founded. 30. By referring to Page 174A of the records it has been submitted that even the registration of Nirmalnagar (Gulbai Tekra) Co-operative Society Limited was also undertaken by the Co-operative Department and all necessary papers related to that had also been furnished and in the enclosures of the said communication dated 01/13.02.2012 in Item No. 9 at bottom detailed consent statement with evidence was also submitted to the Additional City Engineer, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and as such when all these steps have been taken by the appellant, there is hardly any reason available for the authority to deviate from the steps concluded in favour of the appellant. Hence, impugned communication deserves to be quashed. 31. Mr. Oza, learned senior advocate has also submitted that a curious stand is taken by the respondent that development permission granted in favour of petitioner by efflux of time has lapsed. In fact the undisputed position prevailing as stated hereinabove would clearly indicate that not only registration of Co-operative Society was done, but also consent of more than 75% slum dwellers was obtained, specific Building Permission had been granted to the appellant and thereafter, litigation had commenced which cannot be used as a lever to pass the impugned communication and further helplessness which has been shown by the corporation in specific terms which has been clearly noted in Paragraph 5 of the Appeal from Orders to the effect that corporation was not in a position to use any force because of pendency of appeals and as such when clear site has not been made available to petitioner, it is surprising as to how corporation can take such a plea that by efflux of time, development permission has been lapsed. On the contrary, said permission had extended on more than one occasion and said stand was never taken even before Appeal from Orders as well and as such there appears to be a clear mala-fide on the part of respondent authority to take such technical plea which is not available to them. 32. On the contrary, said permission had extended on more than one occasion and said stand was never taken even before Appeal from Orders as well and as such there appears to be a clear mala-fide on the part of respondent authority to take such technical plea which is not available to them. 32. The learned senior advocate has further submitted that appropriate opportunity of hearing was not given to petitioner and for that has relied upon the decision in the case of Canara Bank and Others vs. Debasis Das and Others, (2003) 4 SCC 557 and by referring to Paragraph 15, said contention is reiterated. Hence, keeping in view the above said submissions and the initial submissions which have already been made the learned senior advocate appearing for appellant has requested this Court to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent authority and requested the Court to grant the relief as prayed for in the appeal. 33. Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1-State has also vehemently opposed the stand of the appellant and after adopting the submissions of learned senior advocate appearing for the corporation he has also contended that every exercise undertaken by the State before taking impugned decision is in consonance with due deliberation and after giving full opportunity to the appellant and it cannot be said that there is violation of principles of natural justice in any form has taken place. Hence, he requested the Court to dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal. Mr. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has also submitted that on the contrary the new policy has also been examined by the State vis-a-vis the Policy of 2010 and has found that file had moved right up to the Office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and after considering pros and cons of the issues involved, a conscious decision is taken to cancel the work issued to petitioner. He would contend appellant has been given full opportunity which is self explanatory from the minutes of meeting dated 05.11.2018, reflecting on page 147A of original records, and hence, he has contended that no case is made out by the appellant to call for any interference. He would contend appellant has been given full opportunity which is self explanatory from the minutes of meeting dated 05.11.2018, reflecting on page 147A of original records, and hence, he has contended that no case is made out by the appellant to call for any interference. The violation of principles of natural justice or mala-fides are not established at all and the original petition is based upon seriously disputed questions of fact and the version projected by original petitioner has been considered by the learned Single Judge and has rightly dismissed the petition, which does not call for interference. 34. Even in chorus, Mr. A.J. Yagnik, learned advocate appearing on behalf of proposed applicants in Civil Application No. 1 of 2020 having adopted the submissions of learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent authority, has submitted that for the over all benefit of large number of people of lower strata of society who are residing in the slum which is the subject matter of Special Civil Application, a just decision has been taken to terminate the contract of petitioner, which has not been interfered with by learned Single Judge. Hence, he has requested this Court not to interfere with the said order. No other submissions have been made by either side. 35. Having heard the learned senior advocates appearing for the respective parties and having perused the material on record and having perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge prima-facie, it clearly appears that while passing the order under challenge learned Single Judge has minutely examined the contents of the Scheme of 2010 as well as the relevant records placed and has refrained from exercising extraordinary jurisdiction and hence, it appears that there is neither any non application of mind nor any perversity in exercise of jurisdiction. On over all consideration of stand taken by both the sides, learned Single Judge has categorically found that petition involves disputed questions of fact and as such was not inclined to exercise extraordinary equitable jurisdiction and further over the passage of time, the development which has taken place is also well within the knowledge of the appellant namely, the State Government's migration from 2010 Scheme to rehabilitation Scheme of 2013. This fact also found favour with learned Single Judge on the ground of accommodating maximum number of beneficiaries. 36. This fact also found favour with learned Single Judge on the ground of accommodating maximum number of beneficiaries. 36. Now so far as the main grievance which has been raised by Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned senior advocate that decision impugned dated 14.03.2019 is taken absolutely in an arbitrary manner and in conflict with well recognized principles of natural justice, when tested in the background of sequence of events which have taken place preceding such impugned action deserves consideration, it would emerge from records that on account of pendency of litigation, namely Appeal from Order Nos. 133/2015 and 134/2015, it was not possible to implement the statutory scheme. Keeping in view the circumstances prevailing, certain directions have been issued therein after having found that appellant therein was not in a position to establish prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. One chance was given to submit the necessary documents and in that context, the process has also been undertaken but then later on, the communications which are reflecting on record indicates some in action on the part of appellant as well, as can be seen from communication dated 01.10.2016, reflecting on page 38/C. This has traveled further as it appears from the record and it is noticed that with a view to sort out the issue, meetings have taken place in which the appellant was clearly given an opportunity to represent and this appears to be not in dispute namely appellant did participate in the said process, as is reflecting from the documents attached to the appeal compilation on Page 112/U. Said document reflects clearly that with an aim to implement the scheme and to see that issue can be resolved, a high level committee appears to have undertaken an exercise in which persons of developers were also given an opportunity and M/s Harshayu Infrastructure Services namely, appellant herein was also permitted to represent as can be seen from paragraph 10 on Page 112/X. The finding of such exercise reflects on each issue finding has been recorded after taking note of the work which was entrusted to the appellant. In view of Policy of 2010 it was decided to refer the same to the Government and after proper examination of the said issue, proposal which was given for migration from 2010 Policy to 2013 Policy. In view of Policy of 2010 it was decided to refer the same to the Government and after proper examination of the said issue, proposal which was given for migration from 2010 Policy to 2013 Policy. The corporation appears to have been permitted to take a decision in that regard and State Government has allowed the same to be decided by the corporation in view of the fact that more number of beneficiaries would be covered under the Policy of 2013 and as such after proper scrutiny of legal aspect permission appears to have been accorded from highest level in the said authority as can be seen from Page 112/T. 37. From the aforesaid situation, the meeting thereafter has taken place on 05.11.2018 consisting of several relevant experts in the authority and under the Chairmanship of Municipal Commissioner, following officers and the members remained present: “1. Shri Amulbhai Bhatt (Chairman) Standing Committee, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. 2. Shri Vallabhbhai Patel (Chairman) Housing and Improvement Committee. 3. Shri A.B. Gor, (C.E.O. AUDA). 4. Shri M.N. Gadhavi (Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Housing Project). 5. Shri J.S. Pajapati (Dy. Municipal Commissioner, Estate/UD). 6. Shri Harpalsinh Zala (Add. City Engineer, Housing Project/SNP). 7. Shri Rajesh G. Patel (I/c. TDO). 8. Shri G.K. Patel (I/c. Estate Officer). 9. Shri Manish Kodekar (SLA). 10. Shri R.M. Desai (Dy. E.O. Middle Zone). 11. Shri Nilesh Barda (D.E.O. Western Zone). 12. Paresh B. Patel (D.E.O. New Western Zone). 13. Shri Chaitanay J. Shah (D.E.O. New Western Zone). 14. Hitendra B. Makwana (Asst. T.D.O. Western Zone). 15. Prakashbhai K. Limbachiya (Asst. T.D.O. Western Zone). 16. Smt. Bijalben (Gujarat Mahila Housing Trust). 17. Smt. Bhartiben (Gujarat Mahila Housing Trust).” 38. These members have deliberated the entire issue in the context of applicability of scheme and same has been discussed threadbare including the issue which relates to a Gulbai Tekra Scheme and a decision is taken to cancel the work assigned to the appellant as per 2010 Policy and it was decided that when a deemed is raised from slum dwellers a decision would be taken separately in that regard. The conclusion arrived at, insofar as it relates to Gulbai Tekra is concerned, reads as under: “2. The conclusion arrived at, insofar as it relates to Gulbai Tekra is concerned, reads as under: “2. The letter being No. AHM-102017-583-TH-1, dated 25.09.2018 of Urban Development and Urban Housing Department of Government of Gujarat for the well-known slum houses named Gulbai Tekra of Navrangpura ward of western zone for P.P.P. project of integrated Slum Insitu Development under Slum Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Policy 2010 of Urban Development and Urban Housing Department of the Government of Gujarat has been received. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has made submission to give approval to do Redevelopment of slum as per the Slum Rehabilitation Policy 2013. In pursuance to it, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department of the Government of Gujrat has informed by its letter that if more beneficiaries are likely to get benefits in the redevelopment of slum as per 2013 policy, A.M.C. can take decision of Slum Rehabilitation Policy 2013 after examining the legal aspect. After taking into consideration the said letter, the work assigned to the developer named Harshayu Infrastructures Services as per the Policy 2010 is cancelled and approval has been given to inform it by letter. Further, now and onwards, it has been decided that when demand is raised from slum, decision will be taken separately in this regard.” 39. In addition to it, what emerges from the record is that originally when approval was accorded on 23.08.2013 it was decided that rehabilitation work was to be completed within a period of three years keeping in mind the situation then prevailing. However, on account of subsequent development which emerges from the record namely to extend the benefit to large section of the society, 2013 Policy has been framed and keep in tune with said object, the State authority has permitted the corporation to examine the issue and take a decision. Additionally, the Rajachitthi which has been issued was also for a limited period as can be seen from the said permission itself. Apart from that at Annexure-G on Page 139 A, would indicates about request for cancellation made by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation also reflects some justification as to why the learned Single Judge had to adopt the view to uphold the impugned order. Apart from that at Annexure-G on Page 139 A, would indicates about request for cancellation made by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation also reflects some justification as to why the learned Single Judge had to adopt the view to uphold the impugned order. Some portion of the said request needs to be quoted hereunder: “This work though approved then also the workings was not started and that the slum residents had demanded for 700 houses again and again and as per the policy did not present the required evidences so presented by some of the huts residents its verification work was not carried out due to their non co-operation in the matter. As per the Police 2010 the Developer who had presented the approved plans and therein the ground + 4 storied building was approved and as per the huts residents demands 700 houses constructions could not be possible was said by the Developers. As per the policy 2013 the parking + 7 storeyed construction is to be planned and then only the demand of the scheme for 700 houses could be possible and thereby the workings could be made possible. And then after whatsoever the land is remaining it could be sold as per the market rate and such rate could be achieved when sold out. At present as per the Policy 2013 at other places the land rates are very high than that of the Jantri Rates and more than 3 to 5 times higher rates have been received. In such cases the Developers are not to be paid the T.D.R. In the present the Developers have proposed for 400 houses as per the Policy 2010 and for that approx. amount of Rs. 125 crores T.D.R. is to be paid. But if the said work is carried out as per the Scheme 2013 period plan then, as per the presentation of the work for 400 houses approx. 7200 sq. mtrs. land is required for the construction purpose and there could be remaining 5000 sq. mtrs. of land. Which costs could be achieved at about Rs. 50 crores and then after deducting the cost of the construction of Rs. 30 crores then also approx. 20 crores Rs. could be achieved by the Corporation. 7200 sq. mtrs. land is required for the construction purpose and there could be remaining 5000 sq. mtrs. of land. Which costs could be achieved at about Rs. 50 crores and then after deducting the cost of the construction of Rs. 30 crores then also approx. 20 crores Rs. could be achieved by the Corporation. As the demands of the local residents more amount of houses are demanded as such for including their demands of the houses this project of Policy 2010 which has been approved could be taken to the Policy 2013 sxo that the Vertical Development (P+7) could be carried out and therein the beneficiaries shall be included to it and the other remaining quantity of land could be sold out by the market value and good amount could be received as such of the present policy it should be taken to the Policy 2013 is quite good enough is seen in present circumstances. As such as per the Slum Rehabilitation Committee meeting held on dated 17.2.2017 and on the end of the findings and discussions the work allotted to the Developers Harshayu Infrastructure Services for the reasons as above shall be treated as cancelled and such permission of cancellation be made. As per the above details the Urban Development and Urban Housing Development Department, Gujarat State Government had made the approval as per No. ZPD- 112013-2210-L dated 23.8.2013 and request for cancellation has been made.” The aforesaid request has been examined by the State authority as well and thereafter it appears that decision is taken which aspect has also been examined by the learned Single Judge while refraining from exercising extraordinary jurisdiction. 40. Further from the pleadings, it is reflecting that there is a serious dispute also with regard to the number of eligible persons under the scheme as is averred on oath by Additional City Engineer the respondent-corporation authority. 40. Further from the pleadings, it is reflecting that there is a serious dispute also with regard to the number of eligible persons under the scheme as is averred on oath by Additional City Engineer the respondent-corporation authority. In the affidavit dated 11.12.2019 filed by him, it is clearly asserted in paragraph 5 on Page 172 that when proposal was made by appellant-developer, it had been shown that 400 slum dwellers are at the site but subsequently it has surfaced and revealed that about 700 slum dwellers are claiming and they are much more in numbers and in effect consent of 75% of occupants was not available or consent of 75% occupants have not been provided by the appellant-developer and there was consent of around 346 occupants only and had there been so, the eviction process could have been undertaken but till June, 2014 for one reason or the other, work could not be commenced which has resulted into subsequent development, as indicated above and by that time from the highest level in the State authority a permission was made available to switch over to 2013 Policy which is said to be accommodating large number of persons and as on over all consideration, a decision has been taken to cancel the work order issued to appellant and issue fresh tender, which cannot be said to be either unjust or arbitrary or done with any mala-fide intention. On the contrary, intention was to achieve the object of the scheme which is meant for the benefit of lower strata of society and as such when all these issues came up for consideration, learned Single Judge has clearly found that appeal contains seriously disputed questions of fact and extraordinary jurisdiction is not possible to be exercised to act as a fact finding authority and as such rightly, learned Single Judge has refrained from exercising the same which in our considered opinion does not suffer from any infirmity. The pleadings itself are self explanatory and such disputed version which involves scrutiny of minute factual details is not possible to be adjudicated or examined in a writ proceedings. Hence, there appears to be no error committed by the learned Single Judge. 41. No doubt the scope of appeal is not restricted, since appeal is continuation of original proceedings. The pleadings itself are self explanatory and such disputed version which involves scrutiny of minute factual details is not possible to be adjudicated or examined in a writ proceedings. Hence, there appears to be no error committed by the learned Single Judge. 41. No doubt the scope of appeal is not restricted, since appeal is continuation of original proceedings. However, if the learned Single Judge in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has evaluated and considered the entire material placed on record and has arrived at a particular conclusion in the absence of any distinguishable material, said detailed conclusion arrived on proper application of mind and consideration of material cannot be substituted in a routine manner on the premise that different view can be taken. This proposition is propounded by catena of decisions delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the instant case, on record we have found that every detail has been considered and on proper analysis a particular view is taken. Hence, in the absence of any distinguishable material or in the absence of any perversity in said finding, we are not inclined to substitute the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We hereby quote relevant observations contained in a decision, which is in the case of Management of Narendra and Company Private Limited vs. Workmen of Narendra and Company, (2016) 3 SCC 340 since the same is applicable to the facts on hand: “5. Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records had come to the conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January 1995, there is no justification in entering a different finding without any further material before the Division Bench. The Appellate Bench ought to have noticed that the statement of MW-3 is itself part of the evidence before the Labour Court. Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.” 42. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.” 42. Though the learned senior advocates appearing on behalf of the respective sides have relied upon few decisions to substantiate their stand but in the background of peculiar circumstance which is prevailing on record, we are of the view that if the facts are distinct the ratio laid down in a particular decision may not be applied as a straightjacket formula since one additional fact would make a world of difference in applying the principles. Hence, we are of the view that decision taken by an authority dated 14.03.2019 is neither arbitrary nor violative of principles of natural justice and factual scenario which is prevailing on record is rather justifying the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge, to which we see no error. Hence, appeal being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 04.09.2019 in Special Civil Application No. 7865 of 2019. No order as to costs. 43. In view of the order passed in the main matter, Civil Application No. 1 of 2020 does not survive and stands dismissed accordingly.