Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdev Singh Ubi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 April, 2012
Writ Petition No.3412/2007
3.4.2012
Shri A. M. Mathur, Senior Advocate, with Shri Abhinav P.
Dhanodkar, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Shri R. D. Jain, Advocate General for the State, with Shri Sudesh
Verma, Government Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Shri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate, with Shri Arpan J. Pawar, Advocate, for respondent no.4.
Shri P. C. Chandak, for respondent no.5.
Shri S. S. Chauhan with Shri Amit Agrawal, Advocates, for respondent no.6.
Petitioner no.1 claims himself to be a social worker and according to petitioner no.2 he is publishing a weekly newspaper in the name of "Shanivar Darpan" from Indore. They have filed the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the validity of notification dated 11.5.2004, Annexure P1, issued by the State Government under section 35(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short, "the Adhiniyam") whereby, out of 10 acres of land allocated for the construction of bus terminus, 3.59 acres has been released for commercial complex. The petitioners have also challenged the vires of section 35 of the Adhiniyam.
In short the facts are that at the junction of A-B Road and M.R.10, situated at village Bhamauri Dubey, Indore, a bus stand was proposed by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (in short, "the MPSRTC") (respondent no.5) on about 25 acres of land. But having regard to its financial constraints, the MPSRTC vide letter dated 27.11.1979, Annexure P4, requested the Chairman of Indore Development Authority (respondent no.4) to allot only 10 acres of land. The Chairman, in his reply dated 24.12.1979 to the MPSRTC, informed that as the land cannot be sold its allotment can be made on the basis of lease. On 11.5.2004 the State Government issued the impugned notification under section 35(2) of the Adhiniyam deleting 3.59 acres out of 10 acres of land allocated for the construction of bus terminus with a direction that the released land may be used for commercial purpose as permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan. Such permission for the land released is permissible under sub- section (3) of section 35. Thereafter, on 26.5.2004 a lease deed was executed by the Indore Development Authority in favour of the MPSRTC in respect of 10 acres of land for the construction of bus terminus. In the meantime, the MPSRTC invited tenders through paper publication for the construction of bus stand-cum-commercial complex in an area 40,000 sq.m. on build-operate-transfer (BOT) basis. The petitioners have stated in para 5.10 of the petition that they had submitted their tenders along with the tender of respondent no.6 and the tender of respondent no.6 was accepted on a premium of Rs.4.61 crore payable to the MPSRTC. In para 5.21 there is also an admission that petitioner no.2 made the offer of Rs.9 crore to the MPSRTC but it was turned down. The offer of petitioner no.2 was turned down mainly for the reason it was made much after the acceptance of tender of respondent no.6. It is in this background the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the impugned notification on the ground that the State Government had no authority to change the land use for the construction of commercial complex on a land allocated for bus terminus and that the provision of section 35 of the Adhiniyam be declared ultra vires.
The State Government in its return has seriously questioned the locus and bonafide of the petitioners for filing this PIL. It has also defended the notification and validity of section 35 of the Adhiniyam. The Indore Development Authority, however, in a separate return has disapproved the notification.
The facts narrated above leave no doubt in our mind that the present petition filed as PIL is not bonafide. Apparently, it is a cloak for attaining private ends of the petitioners. The petitioners, as per their own admission, participated in the tender process for obtaining a contract to construct commercial complex on the land released by the impugned notification and when they could not succeed, they malafidely filed the present petition in the garb of PIL which cannot be permitted. Even according to the learned Senior counsel for petitioners, a decision has been taken on 20.2.2009 by a committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh to cancel the lease of the land in question executed in favour of the MPSRTC by the Indore Development Authority and the said decision is under challenge in a pending Writ Petition No.2937/2009 filed by respondent no.6.
It is to be noted that by order dated 25.3.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.2937/2009 a Division Bench of this High Court has directed that the decision dated 20.2.2009 shall not be given effect to.
We therefore, without entering into the merits of the case and expressing any opinion thereon, decline to admit this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (R. S. JHA) JUDGE JUDGE ps