Bombay High Court
Mr. Chiman Narayan Taras & Others vs State Of Maharashtra & Others on 22 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: AIR2000BOM100, 2000(1)BOMCR540, (2000)2BOMLR170, AIR 2000 BOMBAY 100, (2000) 1 ALLMR 427 (BOM), 2000 (1) ALL MR 427, (2000) 1 BOM CR 540, 2000 (2) BOM LR 170, 2000 BOM LR 2 170
Author: R.J. Kochar
Bench: R.J. Kochar
ORDER N.J. Pandya, J.
1. These petitions relate to the question of acquisition of some of the lands of village Kiwale, Taluka-Haveli, District-Pune, in connection with Mumbai-Pune Express Highway. In the first of the two petitions, there are five petitioners belonging to one Taras family of the said village. In the other petition, there are three petitioners of Admane family and another, one Mrs. Mukta Sunil Chaitanya is having interest in one of the lands of that village under acquisition, though she resides at Nigadi, Pune. Needless to say, the petitioners of the first petition are of village Kiwale.
2. It is an admitted position that the acquisition work for the said project was initiated in the year 1995 and the work had commenced. While acquisition proceedings were in progress under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there appeared newspaper items to the effect that the changes are being thought of at different places on the said Expressway, particularly with reference to the village Kiwale. This item did appear in the newspaper 'Prabhat' in its issue dated 18th May, 1997 and that story was reported by one Mr. Sudamrao Taras. He had also issued a threat of self-immolate, if changes are made. According to him, other 45 Agriculturists were also with him to join the same. A copy of this news item is produced at page 18.
3. It was a general feeling that in order to save a particular stretch of land which was with regard to "Devivan", the entire exercise of change in alingment has been done.
4. Apparently, these news items were not totally unfounded, because, indicating the changes, section 4 Notification came to be issued in the month of December, 1997 and, particularly, with reference to the land of petitioners of the two petitions. Section 4 Notification dated 12th December, 1997 came to be Gazetted on 14th December, 1997.
5. Because of the aforesaid news items and apprehending the changes, in the month of July, 1997. Writ Petition No. 3249 of 1997 came to be filed by Chiman Narayan Taras & others. It came to be disposed of on 9th February, 1998 on the basis that, in response to the said Notification under section 4, in the course of acquisition proceedings initiated by the said section 4 Notification dated 12th December, 1997, an enquiry under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, would be held, wherein the petitioners can make representation. The aforesaid petition came to be disposed of without entering into merits.
6. In the said petition, one Mr. G.N. Ratnaparkhi, Executive Engineer of Mumbai Road Development and Design Division No. 1, Kalanagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai, had filed his affidavit on 11th September, 1997, a copy of which is produced at Exhibit-F, page 21.
7. One of the petitioners of the second Petition No. 1626 of 1999 did file the representation under section 5-A, as per Exhibit-H, page 30. It has come on record that, when the opportunity under section 5-A was given, so far as the petitioners are concerned, except Mr. Yashodhan Sharad Admane, no one had availed the opportunity. The say of the petitioners is that the enquiry under section 5-A was done in a manner so as not to offer any opportunity to them whatsoever. This aspect will be gone into in the course of this judgment.
8. Ultimately, when Notification under section 6, read with section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, came to be issued on 29th June, 1998, the second petition of the two came to be filed on or about 14th January, 1999. The first one was filed on 7th December, 1998.
9. In the course of time, both the petitions were taken up together and eventually on hearing both the sides, by an order dated 8th March, 1999, Rule came to be issued and interim orders came to be passed.
10. The learned Judges, who passed the said order of issuing rule and granting interim reliefs, have given reasoned order which will be referred to hereinafter. So far as the interim relief is concerned, it is clarified that the same is that of the status quo only. This position was prevailing from 14th December, 1998 when it came to be granted in the first of the two petitions.
11. The learned Judges passed the aforesaid order on 8th March, 1999 on the strength of the material produced by the petitioners in the form of the said representation of Mr. Admane, newspaper items. Affidavit of Mr. G.N. Ratnaparkhi, Exhibit-F, pages 21 to 28, as also a copy of the order passed by the Court on 9th February, 1998 in earlier Writ Petition No. 3249 of 1997 at Exhibit-G, page 29. Over and above that, the learned Judges had also called for the relevant files, which they had perused, and after referring to the details which they gathered from these files, the said order dated 8th March, 1999 came to be passed.
12. In these two petitions, it may now be said that Writ Petition No. 6806 of 1998 is treated as Main petition and, therefore, replies and documents have been produced by both the sides in that petition. Reference to page numbers and records is made on the basis of the stay prevailing in the said main petition.
13. As the respondents, at No. 1 we have State of Maharashtra, at No. 2-The Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 1; No. 3 is the District Collector; No. 4 is the Divisional Commissioner; and No. 5 Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. To these, respondent No. 6 was added at his request and his name is Mr. Vinod K. Baney. He was allowed to be impleaded in the petition as the petition is based on assertions that in order to help Mr. Baney and in order to save his property alone, the disputed changes in alignment of Mumbai-Pune Express Highway have been made.
14. While the said Order dated 8th March, 1998 was passed, the learned Judges, on perusal of the files, noted that as per the earlier acquisition proceedings, notices were issued under section 9 to the concerned officers. Proposed alignment was finalised by the State on the basis of a report of an International Expert Body by name "RITES". It was also noted that Mr. Baney had made representation with regard to the proposed acquisition and it was he who had suggested an alternative alignment which was to affect the lands of certain agriculturists of the village Kiwale.
15. After going through the record, the learned Judges found that the District Collector had opposed the proposed alignment as, in his opinion, the proposed change is likely to create additional financial burden on the State Government. It was also noted that one Mr. Jawdekar, who was the local M.L.A., had strongly recommended Mr. Baney's case. Referring to the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by one Mr. A.T. Patkar, dated 14th January, 1999 (Pages 34-A to 40), the learned, Judges have found that the private agency was employed by the State Government without disclosing its name for the purpose of change in alignment. The learned Judges have found that additional burden, referred to the tune of Rs. 400 lakhs, was based on the figures solely on the estimation given by Mr. Baney, the respondent No. 6. The petitioners specifically pleaded that Mr. Baney's construction is unauthorised one. To this, in the said affidavit, response was that the authorities are not concerned if it were illegal.
16. Based on these factors, the learned Judges have found that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case and therefore, passed the order of issue of rule and continuation of status quo granted on 14th December, 1998.
17. In this background, it is hardly surprising that, while arguing the matter, the case of mala fide, colourable exercise of powers and blatant misuse of powers has been pleaded.
18. Over and above the affidavit of Mr. Ratnaparkhi, that was filed in the earlier petition, and the affidavit of Mr. Patkar, Executive Engineer, dated 14th January, 1999, there have been affidavits and rejoinders. So far as respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are concerned, Mr. Patkar had filed another affidavit on 7th July, 1999 at pages 70 and 73 and finally Mr. A.M. Prabhu, Superintending Engineer of respondent No. 1 had filed affidavit on 7th September, 1999, pages 74 to 86. The rejoinders filed by the petitioners are in form of denial as against whatever has been stated by these officers in their respective affidavits.
19. In the course of arguments, a grievance was made that when the learned Judges passed the order on 8th March, 1999, they had a benefit of going through the files and it was not made available to the petitioners. They, therefore, wanted that all these files first should be shown to them; they should be given inspection; they should be given an opportunity of copying the said documents, etc. The Civil Application was filed during pendency of the proceedings but it was rejected.
20. That apart, being fully conscious of the fact that in the aforesaid background when on earlier occasion, the learned Judges had an opportunity of seeing the files, we had also directed the learned Advocate General and his colleagues appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that the entire record pertaining to the dispute be kept ready for perusal of this Court and further directed that not only the files and papers which were made available on earlier occasion to the learned Judges on 8th March, 1999 but all relevant documents pertaining to the dispute of these matters, should also be kept ready.
21. It may be stated here that this direction was carried out by learned Advocate General. In spite of rejection of the earlier application, learned Advocate General has also very fairly stated that whatever documents that are with him will be shown to the Court in the course of arguments on behalf of these respondents and that copies of all these documents will certainly be made available to the Court in this regard.
22. The arguments had commenced on 7th October, 1999. Learned Counsel for both the sides appeared in their respective petitions and on factual aspect of the matters, their submissions had concluded on the very day and when the hearing was resumed on 12th October, 1999, where learned Counsel for the petitioners were supposed to make submissions with regard to the authorities that they were to cite, on that day, civil application was filed in Writ Petition No. 6806 of 1998. It has been given stamp number only.
23. On behalf of the petitioners of the first petition, the request was made, which was more particularly supported by learned Counsel for the petitioners of the other petition, that the local inspection be carried out either through learned District Judge, Pune or by getting a Expert Committee appointed. So far as the local inspection either through learned District Judge, Pune or by Expert Committee to be appointed is concerned in our opinion, there is no necessity of such inspection at all. At first blush, the matter as stood on what has been recorded by the learned Judges in their order dated 8th March, 1999, may appear to call for this measure but on going through the respective affidavits and records as also material produced and shown to us in the course of submissions of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the situation is not at all like what it appeared to be at the stage when the said first order came to be passed.
24. In view of the other four different affidavits, obviously so far as the petitioners are concerned, virtually task for them was cut out. Treating this to be a readymade material, they had cited different pages and paragraphs of these affidavits by showing that there are mutual contradictory statements made by different officers in their respective affidavits and, therefore, according to them, this would further strengthen the arguments of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 going all throughout to save Mr. Baney's property. In our opinion, the situation is just the other way round.
25. Learned Advocate General has tabulated the contents of the three affidavits on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Whatever be the alleged contradictions that the petitioners were relying on, that have been given to us in the tabulated form. Wherever necessary, with reference to this table, we have referred to various paragraphs of the respective affidavits. Once the proposition is accepted in the light of the submissions that all three affidavits referred to in connection with the entire project of 84 k.ms., most of these alleged contradictions or inconsistencies have become irrelevant. For these reasons, we have not gone into the details of these three affidavits.
26. What is admitted by the State and the other respondents is also striking. After foreign consultants and M/s. RITES (Rail India Technical and Economic Services) submitted their report, and acquisition proceedings have started on the basis of proposed alignment as per that report, several objections were received from various people all along the stretch of 84 kms. of Express Highway. The highway designated as such starts from village Kon and ends at Dehu Road towards Pune end. The disputed part in this petition is near Dehu point. Reference to these local changes to be found in the affidavit of Mr. Ratnaparkhi at pages 21 to 28, more particularly at page 23 in para 3. It was properly understood when the affidavits of other two officers read together especially with reference to a comprehensive plan of the entire stretch of Express Highway produced on behalf of the respondents' of these changes, the change, which is subject matter of the present litigation is No. 6 and end point of the Highway is near Dehu Road. All along the way before coming to Dehu, there are other five changes shown in green colour along with stretch in the said map numerically starting No. 1 at village Bhatan No. 2 at Dujodwali, No. 3 at Khandala, No. 4 at Kurwada, No. 5 at near I. N.S. Shivaji, Lonavala.
27. On the said map, the original alignment of Foreign Consultants as also "RITES" is also shown in dark yellow colour. Now approved Express Highway is shown in dark red colour. Striking change is to be found from the spot Mandad Dumping place and more particularly, after the tunnels, section-B End and Ghat Section Start. In the process, old alignment suggested by the aforesaid two agencies has been given a complete go-bye and thereby places like, Kurwanda Dumping Place, Lonawala, I.N.S. Shivaji, etc. are left out and they being in the vicinity of Express Highway and it has been taken away further towards North of existing road of National Highway No. 4 and at some places to run along with it and crossing the Central Railway lines once again near the place Dongargaon, it comes back to the original alignment at the place called "Kusgaon". Such extensive changes are particularly in the Ghat section after the end of third tunnel, as per the said map, with the end of Ghat section at village Kusgaon, which is section C. As per the said map, the disputed change comes, as noted earlier, at the end.
28. Various affidavits, therefore, explain that the reference to the figure of Rs. 400 lakhs has nothing to do with Mr. Baney's property and it is in connection with all these changes. The construction work of a road on hillterrane and more particularly in the Ghat section of Khandala and Lonavala of Bombay-Pune Express Highway would certainly involve huge expenditure. Reference to the houses, factories, bungalows, trees and further reference to environment, in general, is also shown by these affidavits to the entire stretch of road and more particularly with reference to all these changes.
29. Therefore, concentration of the petitioners exclusively on their concern is understandable but they cannot be permitted to appropriate these so called changes or the counting of number of trees, houses, bungalows, factories, etc. exclusively to the disputed change No. 6 at Dehu Junction.
30. Admittedly, in the disputed changes, if there be any bungalow, it is that of Mr. Baney's only. There are more than two houses to be demolished if the changes are allowed. There is no factory at all. However, once the State Government has taken overall views of the matter of a project of this magnitude and also of importance and prestige, so far as the State is concerned, of necessity, it will not be concentrating only on a stretch of the entire Express Highway that too a very small part of it.
31. As could be seen from the map produced by the petitioners themselves as also affidavit paragraph 7 page 79 in respect of the original alignment, there is a deflection of 56.13 degree. New proposal has a deflection of 45.25 degree. In measurement, the distance in both alignments is only between 200 to 300 meters as per Mr. A.M. Prabhu's affidavit in the said para 7 pages 79 and 80.
32. So far as the nature of land for both the alignments is concerned, there is no change at all, and, on the contrary, in the proposed change, the land holders would not be rendered landless as per Mr. Prabhu's affidavit in that very paragraph. It is also to be seen with reference to the map produced by the petitioners themselves that the original alignment does not stop at the point where it is shown to be in the map at page 34 Exhibit-J when it touches the existing National Highway No. 4. It being an Express Highway, it has to have what is known as fanning out part of the road for entry into an exit from the Express Highway when it meets the National Highway No. 4 at Dehu near Pune which can be regulated by this device only because in the proposed change also, fanning is clearly shown more particularly on behalf of the State when based on this very map page 34, they have given with colour Codes.
33. When the Map, page 34, Exhibit J is taken along with this colour coded map, it becomes clear that as per the old alignment shown in the blue colour, when it comes on to the National Express Highway No. 4 to its north, there is a green portion having trees and houses which were not notified but is to be acquired for 5 curve. As against that, the changes in the alignments, as per the proposal, are divided into two parts, the first part is in yellow colour where the possession is taken and work has been concluded. It stops at the place where the dispute with the petitioners starts and that is shown in pink colour. This pink colour as it touches the National Highway No. 4, it takes the slope of the said fanning device. There are two arms curving out of this portion of the road before it touches National Highway No. 4 and at the fanning device again, there are two arms proceeding towards the road i.e. National Highway No. 4.
34. As the National Highway No. 4 has the general direction of east-west, to understand this position, pink portion will now be referred to as North of NH-4 and South of NH-4. The Northern part which is fanning device has one curved arm almost falling upon itself as an entry point for vehicles coming on NH-4 from western direction to enter onto the Express Highway towards Bombay, likewise, the arms touching on to the Express Highway to its South also provides at entry point for traffic coming from Pune side i.e. Western side of the Highway.
35. Similarly, arms entering on to the NH-4 to the West from pink road, is an entry point to NH No. 4 and correspondingly exit point from Express Highway for the vehicles to get on to the said NH-4 and proceed on the Highway towards south side. Lastly, one arm from Express Highway provides an entry into NH-4 towards Pune for vehicles coming from Bombay side on the Express Highway to continue as journey towards Pune.
36. This being the proposal in connection with changed alignments, one can understand the requirement in relation to the old alignment shown in the blue colour and the use of that portion of the land shown in green colour lying on north of NH-4 in the said map that it could have been put to when similar fanning device would have been placed there.
37. These local changes which are on record are found to have connection, therefore, with the entire stretch of road of 84 kms. including disputed point. A glance at the said map, clearly shows that in spite of changes in alignment. Mr. Baney looses 3 acres of land. No doubt, it does save his house and also a portion of land.
38. So far as Mr. Baney is concerned, he as a gentleman referred to by the petitioners, is apparently not the owner. Respondent No. 6 happens to be the owner and we also have it by his affidavit at page 52 to 62. He has produced alongwith it the necessary permission granted for N.A. sanction or construction of a house in favour of the original owner of the land and also annexed receipts of payment of taxes to the Chinchwad Mahanagarpalika, Pimpri, Pune, pages 64 to 69.
39. Respondent No. 6 admits that he did make representation in fact by employing the private consultants M/s. Gomu Corporation and that they did propose some three changes all of which were farther away from the old proposal shown in blue in the said map and if accepted would have completely saved his entire property. With reference to the map, if one turns to a portion bearing the legend Devivan and also Arabic numeral 9 and if one processes the old alignment shown in blue colour and proceeds towards Arabic numeral 10 which is to be found near the portion "Sai Industries", all three changes were towards the said Arabic numeral 10 and further-up so that according to the efforts of respondent No. 6, the entire property would have been saved.
40. It is clearly alleged in the petition, no doubt, denied by Mr. Baney that he is a close associate of Mr. Girish Vyas, who happens to be the son-in-law of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister Shri Manohar Joshi. Leaving aside that denials and going by the case of the petitioners as it is, if this has been the position from the beginning when efforts were made by Mr. Baney, the respondent No. 6 in the year 1995 itself, any of these three proposed changes could have been granted if he was shown a special favour as alleged, he would have saved three acres of land, may be fallow and barren as suggested by the petitioners, as well. He does lose the same under the proposed change.
41. The private agency which did carry out the work on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was none other than M/s. Gomu Consultants. This would give a ground for the petitioners to urge that what they had alleged in the petitioner is indeed made out. However, it was that very M/s. Gomu Consultants which has suggested the changes favouring Mr. Baney which was not accepted by the Government. The (one) which is now accepted has the aforesaid affects so far as Mr. Baney, the respondent No. 6 is concerned. Therefore, in our opinion, nothing can be made of the fact that the same consultant was employed by Mr. Baney as also by respondent Nos. 1 to 5. At least, nothing sinister could be assumed or inferred on that basis.
42. In the background of the aforesaid discussions, particularly with reference to the requirement of fanning devices, according to the respondents, once the proposal in dispute is taken into consideration on the basis of technical feasibility and also superiority as claimed in the aforesaid affidavit at pages 23 and 24 of Mr. Ratnaparkhi duly supported by remaining affidavits and elaborated upon further by Mr. Prabhu is para 7 at page 79, in our opinion, no grievance could be made out by the petitioners.
43. It has all along been asserted by the petitioners that the lands earlier under acquisition were unirrigated lands. It has also been asserted that the disputed lands were also irrigated and all fertile. It is very significant to note that none of the petitioners have produced any of the revenue records which could have easily been done by producing revenue record like 7/12 extracts record of rights Form No. 6, 8-A record of the village wells, and all other related records. Needless to say that it is a part of public record.
44. This takes us to the said application filed after the arguments of facts were over. As stated earlier, documents shown to the Court were definitely made available to the petitioners. So far as remaining documents are concerned, to the extent to which they are public records, the petitioners could easily have had them if they so wanted. The right under section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act, in our opinion, was not availed of by them. A grievance of the petitioners is that an officer who for that purpose had to come at the site at 11 a.m., did not come at all but somebody turned up at the Talathi's office in the afternoon where Mr. Admane was present with the representation that would be filed by him.
45. Page 30 is a representation in English. Even if Mr. Admane has bored with that language, it is safe to infer that he had gone there after it was prepared by him in advance. Apart from this, when the petitioners came to know that the officers were avoiding to give an opportunity to them, they could have easily filed a representation as Mr. Admane did in person by sending representation through post, in our opinion, therefore, except for making protest about no opportunity having been given, the expressed purpose for which the earlier petition was disposed of, is not served because of inaction on the part of the petitioners.
46. It is significant to note that by both the ends, more particularly up to the portion shown in yellow colour, the work has been completed. At this later stage to consider the case of the petitioners, in our opinion, would considerably set back the Express Highway projects and put it a far beyond the Schedule. It is nobody's case that the project is not a public purpose. All that the petitioners are trying to say is that the project should not touch their lands but take somebody else's land. Being a land holders, their feeling is well understood. Respondent No. 6 has made no bone about having made representation and having been submitted three different proposals. The petitioners too, did try and in spite of not making representations under section 5-A, when they felt that they have been denied opportunity and therefore, they had filed petitions. So far as the outcome is concerned, in our opinion there is no manner of doubt that the petitions would fail.
47. The petitioners have relied on The State of Punjab v. Gurdial Sigh, where, particularly on para 7 at page 321, four issues are enumerated by Their Lordships as also on paragraphs 9 and 16 of the said judgment. Of the four issues in paragraph 7, the first one relates to mala fide which has-been elaborated upon in paragraph 9. As laid down therein "............... bad faith which invalidates the exercise of power sometimes called colourable exercise or fraud on power ..................." is set out.
Applying the test as laid down in that paragraph, the attainment of ends in the instant case is to deviate the alignment as to the meeting point or junction point as NH-4 to the aforesaid extent unless therefore can be said that by simulation or pretension of gaining a legitimate goal, the attainment of ends goes beyond the sanctioned purpose obviously cannot be said to be mala fide. So far as the observations in para 16 are concerned, they do not help the petitioners for the simple reasons that before Notifications under sections 6 and 17 were issued, burke inquiry was gone into. We, therefore, agree with the learned Judges that the requirement set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment at page 321 is not made out by the petitioners.
48. The petitioners have further relied on Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Note (G) on page 874 read with paragraph 118 on page 926 of the judgment. It reiterate well known principles of fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end design. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the decision does not help to the petitioners.
49. The petitioners have further relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rudmal Shionarayan Haridwar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1980 Mh.L.J., page 842, where, in paragraph 7 on page 846, the case of acquisition is discussed. It was found to be mala fide discriminatory in abuse of power and also result of total non-application of mind. For the reasons stated above, this is not the position here, obviously, this decision is not applicable to the case of the petitioners.
50. On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, learned Advocate General has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector v. Durga Pada, . This clearly says that once there is a section 6 Notification, as per sub-section (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, there is conclusive presumption. It is, therefore, obvious that in order to display the same, the burden is heavy on the one who disputes the same. In paragraph 6 of the said judgment, this aspect has been dealt with by Their Lordships. Again referring to paragraph 3, more particularly, the ground (b) on page 1680, learned Advocate General has, in our opinion, rightly pointed out that the petitioners have failed to make out a case of notifications having been issued in colourable or mala fide exercise of the power conferred by the Act. If one turns to the petition, one finds that in paragraph VI, an averment at page 5 is that the petitioners were informed unofficially about the change having been made by Mr. Baney. In paragraph X, there is a reference to the survey to be carried out on 25th June, 1997. Some altercation took place at the time of actual survey and the petitioners were arrested by the Police. At that stage, earlier writ petition seeks to have been filed as per para XII. So far as grounds in the petitions are concerned, after paragraph XVI at page 9 referring to the earlier acquisition, they have maintained that it was thought of action asserting that it is a colourable exercise of powers. A reference is made to Mr. Baney who is a business associate of Mr. Girish Vyas, son-in-law of the then Honb'le Chief Minister Shri Manohar Joshi. Rest of the grounds have already been dealt with so also the particulars set out into one affidavit which according to the petitioners contradicted by the others. Lastly, Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M/s. Godrej and Boyce, has been cited by learned Advocate General. There, it has been held that the Government is competent to withdraw the lands from the acquisition under the said Act after issuing Notification under section 4 at any time before taking possession of the lands by Government. Submission, therefore, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is that the first acquisition as per the old plan now having come to the stage of section 9 for the reasons stated above in relation to the entire 84 kms. stretch of Express Highway, six local changes have been made, disputed being one of them, the Government having acted in appropriate exercise of its power, the petitions must fail. We entirely agree with the submissions made by learned Advocate General.
51. The letter of Executive Chairman of State Planning Commission, a xerox copy of which was produced, had to be seen in original. Learned Advocate General has succeeded in getting the original letter and it has been produced before us. It is dated 3rd February, 1996. He strongly recommends the change in alignment in respect of which, according to him, the officers are also in agreement. He also recommends that this change may be at the stage of Steering Committee.
52. This letter was received on or before 8th February, 1996 and the concerned Minister to whom it was addressed by name had directed the Secretary, Public Works Department, to discuss the matter with him. Accordingly, discussion was done on 13th February, 1996. In the xerox copy, endorsements were not legible. In the original, they are very much clear and legible. However, looking at them, in our opinion, this suspicion felt by the petitioners about some conspiracy having been hatched to help respondent No. 6 is not made out. This aspect in relation to respondent No. 6 has already been dealt with in detail. In our opinion, therefore, nothing can be made out from this letter so far as the petitioners are concerned.
53. Before passing an order, we say that so far as Civil Application is concerned, it is not required to be granted at all. The points on which they are seeking, the Committee's Report, in our opinion, is not at all called for because it further holds that there is no need for appointment of Commissioner at all.
54. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the petitions are, therefore, rejected. The order of status quo is vacated.
55. The office is directed to make available certified copy of this order immediately.
56. In this background, the request for staying the order for a period of eight weeks is not considered. Instead of eight weeks, we are granting four weeks and for that period, the operation of this judgment will be stayed.
57. Interim relief granted during the pendency of this petition shall be continued for a period of four weeks. This extension is granted subject to the condition that before filing of the matter in the Hon'ble Supreme Court a notice or at least 48 hours shall be given to the respondents.
58. P.A. to supply ordinary copy of this order.
59. Petitions dismissed.