Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. On the other hand, it is contended by Shri Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General, assisted by Ms. Sangeeta K. Vishen, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of M/s. Wadiaghandy & Co., Advocates for respondent no.4 that the petition is filed at a very belated stage after 5 years of the impugned Resolution passed by the Government. It is submitted that, even by the time the petition is filed, majority of civil construction has been already completed and the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. It is submitted that even on merits, there are absolutely no grounds for seeking relief as prayed for wherein, the petitioner has challenged the Resolution of the Government. It is submitted that during the year 2009 in Vibrant Gujarat Summit, 4th respondent has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding. HC-NIC Page 30 of 60 Created On Sun Aug 13 14:19:36 IST 2017 Basing on the same, it is submitted that 4th respondent submitted the proposals which are routed through the Gujarat Infrastructure Development Board and others. The proposal was scrutinised by the Government and ultimately it was approved by the Cabinet for allotment of land to 4th respondent to construct the world class Multi- purpose Sports Stadium and Recreation Complex in the model of `hub and spoke'. It is submitted that the stadiums which are constructed on huge chunk of land at various places as referred by the petitioner, are not comparable with the design and concept of the project of sports complex of 4th respondent which is being constructed on the land allotted to 4th respondent. The said allotment is made with the objective to create world class infrastructure to develop sports culture in the State, which would extend to rural areas. The project which his undertaken by 4th respondent is having innovative features and as such, the proposal of 4th respondent was considered in exercise of power under Section 10A of the Gujarat Infrastructure Development Act, 1999, as it falls under Schedule-III thereof,and after passing the Resolution in question, Concession Agreement was also entered into. It is submitted that various opinions rendered by the Government Departments are advisory in nature and ultimately, it was discussed threadbare at every stage and decided to allot the land on lease basis for annual rent of Rs.4,02,294.88 for 35 years, for setting up the project in question on Design, Build, Finance, Own, Operate and Transfer mode by imposing various conditions safeguarding the interest of the State Government. HC-NIC Page 31 of 60 Created On Sun Aug 13 14:19:36 IST 2017 It is submitted by the learned Advocate General that after approval of the project by the Gujarat Infrastructure Development Board, the file was processed at various departments and a duly prepared note containing the views of all the concerned departments, including the Revenue Department suggesting to charge Rs. 21.67 Crore as annual rent in the matter of allotment of land on lease basis to respondent no.4, along with the proposal for grant of land in question on token rent of Re.1/- per sq.ft. per annum, was ultimately placed in the Cabinet for the purpose of consideration and approval. It is submitted that on 23rd February 2011, in the meeting, after detailed deliberation, the Cabinet took decision to accept the proposal and sanction allotment of land on lease basis as proposed by the Gujarat Infrastructure Development Board on token rent of Re.1/- per sq.ft per year, i.e., at the annual lease rent of Rs 4,02,294.88 for 35 years. Consequent to such decision of the Government, the Government, through its Industries and Mines Department issued Government Resolution, sanctioning the allotment of the land in favour of respondent no.4 on annual lease rent of Rs. 4,02,294.88 for 35 years for setting up the project in question on "Design, Build, Finance, Own, Operate and Transfer" (DBFOOT) basis and consequently, orders were passed by the Collector, transferring the land to 4th respondent on 23rd August 2011. It is further submitted that 4th respondent has developed the above-referred Multi-purpose Sports Stadium and Recreation Complex and has hosted 1st Kabbadi World Cup,2016 in the Arena of Ahmedabad in the month of October 2016. It is HC-NIC Page 32 of 60 Created On Sun Aug 13 14:19:36 IST 2017 submitted that the writ-petition is filed belatedly in the month of September 2015 without explaining the delay and laches. Learned Advocate General submits that auction is not an invariable rule where action of the Government is in the interest of public at large and is in conformity with law. The decision of the Government to allot the land on lease basis on DBFOOT basis conforms to the norms and is absolutely transparent which is taken for larger interest of the sports community in the State of Gujarat. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State, in support of his submission, placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this High Court in the case of Pathan Mohammed Suleman Rehmatkhan v. State of Gujarat, Through Principal Secretary, rendered in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 97 of 2013, dated 4th October 2013, reported in 2013 (0) AIJ-GJ 230062, as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Pathan Mohammed Suleman Rehmatkhan v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2014 ) 4 Supreme Court Cases

HC-NIC Page 34 of 60 Created On Sun Aug 13 14:19:36 IST 2017

12. Before we proceed to deal with the arguments made by the learned counsel on both the sides, we deem it appropriate to refer to the provisions of the Gujarat Infrastructure Development Act, 1999, as amended by Act No. 18 of 2006.

13. Gujarat Infrastructure Development Act, 1999 was enacted with avowed object to provide for a framework for participation by persons other than the State Government and Government agencies in financing, construction, maintenance and operation of infrastructure projects and for that purpose to establish a Board and to provide for the matters connected therewith. It is clear from the objectives of the said Act that for rapid industrialization, balanced development and improvement of quality life of the people of the State, infrastructure facilities of higher quality on a large-scale are required to be provided. It is felt that for that purpose, it is essential that besides the State Government and the Government agencies, the government thought it fit to involve private sector in substantial manner for providing infrastructure facilities in the State. Keeping such objectives in mind, the said Act was enacted by creating a statutory board called "Gujarat Infrastructure Development Board, under Section 17 of the Act. As per various provisions and objects of the scheme of the Act under Chapter II of the Act, for Infrastructure Projects, section 3 provides that any person may participate in financing, construction, maintenance and operation of a project. Under section 4 of the Act, a person may enter into a concession HC-NIC Page 35 of 60 Created On Sun Aug 13 14:19:36 IST 2017 agreement of the nature specified in Schedule II with the State Government, a Government agency or a specified Government agency. Under section 5(1) of the Act, a proposal prepared by the State Government, a Government agency or a specified Government agency for participation by a person other than the State Government, a Government agency or a specified Government agency in financing, construction, maintenance and operation of the project, the cost of which exceeds such amount as may be prescribed, shall be submitted to the Board along with proposed concession agreement relating thereto for its consideration and different amounts of cost may be prescribed for different nature of projects. On such submission, under Section 5(2) of the said Act, the Board shall consider the proposal and the proposed concession agreement submitted to it under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1) of section 10 and may either recommend with or without modifications or not recommend, or return the proposal and concession agreement for reconsideration of the State Government, the Government agency or, as the case may be, the specified Government agency. Under section 6 of the Act, the State Government, a Government agency or a specified Government agency may provide to a person assistance in the manner provided in the said section. As per section 7 of the Act, no concession agreement for undertaking a project shall be entered into with any person unless the procedure specified in sections 8 and 9 or, as the case may be, sections 8 and 10 has been followed. Under section 8(1) of the Act, a concession agreement for HC-NIC Page 36 of 60 Created On Sun Aug 13 14:19:36 IST 2017 undertaking a project may be entered into with a person who is selected through a competitive public bidding as provided in section 9 or by direct negotiation as provided in section 10. Under Section 8(2) of the Act, the matters relating to competitive bidding and direct negotiation shall be such as may be prescribed.

27. At the first instance, Memorandum of Understanding was entered into during the Vibrant Gujarat Investors Global Summit between the Tourism Department of the State Government and the 4th respondent for setting up Multi-purpose Stadium and Recreation Complex at Kankaria, Maninagar, Ahmedabad. The process started thereafter when the 4th respondent, on 30th January 2009 addressed a HC-NIC Page 48 of 60 Created On Sun Aug 13 14:19:36 IST 2017 letter and moved a proposal for an eco-friendly Multi-purpose Stadium to be made on "Design, Build, Finance, Own, Operate & Transfer" model along with detailed project report to Gujarat Infrastructure Development Board (GIDB). In the very proposal, it was stated that the project is an innovative project involving proprietary technology patented worldwide. On 4th February 2009, the Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Ltd addressed a letter to the State Government, stating that the project seems to be of unique nature and first of its kind in Gujarat and on 5th February 2009, the State Government addressed a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of GIDB, urgently requiring technical and financial evaluation of the project of 4th respondent. Pursuant to the same, the GIDB addressed a letter on 5th February 2009 to respondent no.4, asking for various details for consideration of its proposal. When further details were called for, on 24th June 2009, 4th respondent addressed a letter to the Secretary, Tourism, Industries & Mines Department and submitted a detailed Project Report prepared by its consultants Ernst & Young, wherein, it was stated that the proposed project is unique and innovative with the world's first convertible stadium with retractable facilities in just 6 minutes with push of a button. Further, on 23rd July 2009, the CEO of Gujarat Infrastructure Development Board addressed a letter to 4th respondent and directed to provide more details about the characteristics of the Project. Thereupon, 4th respondent, on 18th August 2009 submitted the desired details to the CEO of Gujarat Infrastructure Development Board, and requested for grant of HC-NIC Page 49 of 60 Created On Sun Aug 13 14:19:36 IST 2017 Government support in various areas. It was further discussed with the CEO of Gujarat Infrastructure Development Board on 16th September 2009 and it was suggested by the CEO of Gujarat Infrastructure Development Board in the meeting held on the said day to get more details from the 4th respondent. After further details were furnished, the CEO of Gujarat Infrastructure Development Board, in the meeting held on 27th April 2010, took a decision and recommended for its approval of the project under Section 10A of the Gujarat Infrastructure Development Act, 2006 and to take further steps to transfer the land. After the approval of the project by the Gujarat Infrastructure Development Board, file was processed through various departments, containing views of various departments, including that of the Revenue Department, wherein it is suggested to collect annual rent of Rs. 21.67 Crores. Ultimately, after detailed deliberation decision was taken in the Cabinet meeting held on 23rd February 2011 to accept the proposal of 4th respondent and sanction the allotment of land on lease basis in favour of 4th respondent for the project in question on annual rent of Rs. 4,02,298.88 for 35 years. Consequently, the Government Resolution was passed further recommending transfer of land to the 4th respondent. From the various stages as referred above and the manner in which the proposal is considered by the Gujarat Infrastructure Development Board as well as the Government, it is clear that Gujarat Infrastructure Development Board as well as the Government have given serious thought at every stage so as to HC-NIC Page 50 of 60 Created On Sun Aug 13 14:19:36 IST 2017 consider whether project proposed by 4th respondent is innovative one or not and ultimately, decision is taken by keeping in mind various facilities which are sought to be provided by 4th respondent.

36. Even we are of the view that the above-said judgment of this Court applies with full force to the case on hand. It is fairly well- settled that even in a petition which is filed by way of public interest litigation with delay and laches which is unexplained, the same is a ground to reject such petition. In the case on hand, it is clear from the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no hard-and-fast rule to apply the principle of delay and laches, while considering the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that at the first instance, Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the parties during the Vibrant Gujarat Summit, 2009 on 18.3.2011 and subsequently, proposal was submitted by 4th respondent. Thereafter, several times further details were called for by the Gujarat HC-NIC Page 58 of 60 Created On Sun Aug 13 14:19:36 IST 2017 Infrastructure Development Corporation (GIDB) and there was correspondence between 4th respondent, Gujarat Infrastructure Development Board as well as the Government. Even after final approval by the Gujarat Infrastructure Development Board, proposals were sent to the Government. Proposals were processed at various stages and ultimately, Government Resolution was passed deciding to allot the land to 4th respondent on 18.3.2011. Though the petitioner claims that he has remained Member of Legislative Assembly for 5 terms and also Member of Parliament, we are of the view that he has not approached this Court within a reasonable time. There is abnormal delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. Further, from the affidavit in reply filed by 1 st and 4th respondents, it is clear that by the time the petition was filed in September 2015, substantial civil construction had come up on the land allotted to 4th respondent. It is specifically averred by 4th respondent that by the time petition was filed in the month of September 2015, 75% of civil construction was over and the company has spent about Rs. 220 Crores by that time. Apart from the submissions made in the affidavit in reply, several photographs are also placed on record by respondent no.4 showing such construction on the date of filing of the petition. From the material placed on record, we are convinced that by the time the petitioner approached this Court, 4th respondent who is allotted the land has spent huge money in making civil construction. Further, by applying the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of HC-NIC Page 59 of 60 Created On Sun Aug 13 14:19:36 IST 2017 the view that the petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches. Apart from merits, on this ground of unexplained delay and laches also the petition, which is filed by way of public interest litigation, is liable to be rejected.