B.P.DAS, J & S.K.MISHRA, J. W.P.(C) NO.16400 OF 2011 (Decided on 16.11.2011) GOBIND CHANDRA ROUT & ORS. ……..Petitioners. .Vrs. STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. ………Opp.Parties. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.226. For Petitioners - M/s. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra, A.K.Mohapatra, N.C.Rout, S.K.Padhi, S.K.Mishra, A.H.Khadanga & Tej Kumar. For Opp.Parties - Addl. Govt. Advocate M/s. Jagannath Patnaik, Sr. Advocate, B.Mohanty, J.K.Patnaik, A.Patnaik, S.Patnaik, R.P.Ray, M.S.Rizvi & B.S.Raiguru (for O.P.Nos.3,4) M/s. Sanjit Mohanty, Sr.Advocate S.Pradhan (for O.P.Nos.8,9,10 & 13) M/s. G.P.Dutta, M.Dutta, S.K.Mohanty & D.Patnaik, (for O.P.No.11) Mr. B.P.Tripathy (for interveners) B. P. DAS, J. This application has been filed by Sri Gobinda Chandra Rout and two others with the followings prayers. “to issue Rule NISI calling upon the opp. parties to show cause as to why:- A. A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ writs shall not be issued directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or Crime Branch, Cuttack to hold as to how O.P. Nos.8, 9 and 13 could be granted as many as 11 leases for land and building from IDCO and another lease for Ac.2.000 by the G.A. Department, Govt. of Orissa and also against the officials who aided and abetted such illegal transactions and to cancel the said allotment- cum-lease of lands and buildings upon consideration of the report of the C.B.I. or Crime Branch, as the case may be, and the professional licence issued to O.P. No.8 by O.P. No.14 to carry on practice as a chartered accountant for his professional misconduct and unethical omission and commissions. B. If the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the Rule absolute. Xxxx” 2. The brief facts leading to the writ application are as follows:- The petitioners, in shape of Public Interest Litigation, challenge the grant of allotment-cum-lease of lands and ready-made buildings, four in number in favour of opposite party No.9, two in favour of opposite party no.11, one each in favour of opposite parties 10 and 12 and three in favour of opposite party no.13, in Chandaka Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar by opposite parties-Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Bhubaneswar (shortly “IDCO”). The petitioners also challenge allotment of one such ready-made building in favour of opposite party no.13 by the General Administration Department, Government of Orissa. The petitioners challenge such allotments on the ground that the same are illegal, improper and grossly mala fide and pray for cancellation of the same. In Table-A of paragraph-1 of the writ application, the petitioners have indicated details of the allotments which are extracted herein-below:- Sl. No. Firm Name Date of decision of allotment of land Allowed or disallow ed Extent of land allotted with allotment order and date Name & Position of the person who represents the Firm. 1. M/s JSS Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.9) 3.5.05 Allowed For Item No.1 to 4, please see Sl. No.8, 82, 154 & 249 of Annexure-6 which is approximately 2.951 acres. Bijoy Kumar Sahoo (Director) (O.P. No.8) 2. -do- 18.01.06 -do- -do- 3. -do- 25.11.06 -do- -do- 4. -do- 14.11.07 -do- -do- 5. M/s SRB Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. (O.P.11) 25.11.06 -do- For Item No.5 and 6, please see Sl. No. 148 and 190 of Annexure-6 Ms. Baijayanti Sahoo (Director) D/o.B.K.Sahoo (O.P.8). 6. -do- 3.2.07 -do- -do- 7. M/s. SIA Information & Technology (O.P.12). 25.2.08 -do- For Item No.7, Please see Sl. No. 289of Annexure-6 8. M/s. JSS IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (O.P.No.10) 25.2.08 -do- For Item No.8, Please see Sl. No. 294 of Bijoy Kumar Sahoo (Director) (O.P. No.8) 9. St. Shiridi Sai Education Society (O.P. No.) 12.1.99 & 14.1.99 -do- For Item No.9, Please see Annexure-9 under which 5 acres of land has been allotted Bijoy Kumar Sahoo (Director) (O.P. No.8) 2 10. -do- Not Known -do- SDF Building No. 1 &2 with an area of 989 decimal has been allotted vide Letter No.5597 dt. 17.3.2010 Particulars of the allotment has been applied for under RTI Act and will be furnished as soon as received. 11. -do- Not Known -do- Land measuring Ac.1.970 has been allotted vide letter No.26076 dt.31.12.2010. -do- 12. -d- Not Known -do- Land measuring Ac.2.000 has been allotted. Particulars of allotment has been applied under RTI Act for the information. As soon as the information is received, it will be filed. 3. According to the petitioners, O.P. No.8, namely, Bijay Kumar Sahoo, by misutilizing his official relationship with IDCO and influencing some Government officials, has established several firms, and by using the names of the said firms to his advantage, has acquired valuable parcels of land and buildings from IDCO and G.A. Department. The said opposite party no.8 has inducted his father, wife, children so also himself as Chairperson, Secretary, Director and Partners, etc. of the firms who have been arrayed as opposite parties 9 to 13. For the aforesaid reason, the petitioners want that a probe is necessary to bring the truth to light about the role of opposite party no.8-Bijay Kumar Sahoo in the alleged grabbing of land from IDCO, which is a Public Sector Undertaking as well as from the G.A. Department of the Government of Orissa. 4. The averments made in paragraph-9 of the writ application that Ms. Baijayanti Sahoo, who is the Director of M/s S.R.B. Consultancy, O.P. No. 11, is the daughter of opposite party no.8 has been seriously objected to by opposite party Nos.8 and 11 to be false. The petitioners have also subsequently admitted that Ms. Baijayanti Sahoo is not the daughter of opposite party no.8. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of IDCO, it is indicated that the allotments of land and buildings in Industrial Area, Chandaka, Bhubaneswar by them in favour of opposite parties 9 to 13 are lawful, correct and reasonable. Such allotments have been made in favour of different companies and Societies and also in favour of opposite parties 9 to 13, who are different persons in the eye of law having separate entities. It is further contended that the IDCO is legally empowered to allot the lands and buildings in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 15 (c) of the Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1980. Apart from opposite parties 9 to 13, lands have already been allotted to several industrial units for establishment of their industries, namely, M/s Suraj Packaging, M/s Specialty Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. M/s Royal Hotel Pvt. Ltd., M/s Team India Pvt. Ltd. M/s Mahila Vikash Nigam and M/s. JSS IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd and many others, who are in possession thereof. 3 6. According to learned counsel for the IDCO, the petitioners have been locked up in various litigations as detailed in paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit. It would be profitable at this stage to quote the said paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit. “8. That with regard to the averments made in paragraphs-3 to 3.1 of the writ petition, the deponent humbly submitted that the petitioners had filed C.S. No. 425 of 2006 and I.A. No. 299 of 2006 against IDCO and another, in the matter of declaration of occupancy right over the suit property bearing Khata No.612, Plot No.44 measuring an area of Ac.5.30 in village Chandrasekharpur corresponding to Industrial Area, Chandaka with a further prayer for grant of permanent/temporary injunction against the defendants restraining them not to enter into the suit land and disturb peaceful possession of the petitioner by making any construction thereon with a further prayer to declare the registered lease deed No.825, dt.23.01.80 executed between Defendant Nos.1 and 2 as illegal, invalid and not to create any right or interest with the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit property. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar in his order dated 04.01.2007 dismissed I.A. No.299/2006 in respect of Plot No.44, Khata No.612 measuring an area of Ac.5.30 in favour of the Corporation. Being aggrieved the petitioner had filed F.A.O. No. 120/2007 before the Hon’ble High Court to set aside the order dated 04.01.2007 of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar in I.A. No.299/2006 thereto. M/s JSS IT solutions Pvt. Ltd., the allottee have also filed W.A. No. 90/2008 against Sri Gobinda Chandra Rout and other in the matter of setting aside the order dated 30.05.2008 of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.7816/2008 relating to Plot No.44, Khata No.612 measuring an area of Ac.5.30 dec. in village Chandrasekharpur corresponding to Industrial Area, Chandaka. The Hon’ble High Court in their order dated 17.6.2008 in W.P.(C) No.7816 of 2008 have vacated the status quo order and allowed W.A. No.90/08 with a further direction to dispose of the FAO No.120/2007 on dated 19.06.2008. The Hon’ble High Court in their order dated 29.07.2008 dismissed FAO No.120/2007 in favour of the Corporation. Review Petition No.142/2002 filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 29.7.2008 in FAO No. 120/2007 was also dismissed.” 7. According to learned counsel for IDCO, in almost all the litigations the petitioners became unsuccessful and out of their personal grudge, they have filed the present writ application in the guise of Public Interest Litigation. 8. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties 8 and 13, sworn to by Bijay Kumar Sahoo-O.P.8 and in paragraph-9 thereof they have indicated the following:- “9. That your deponent craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to file its para-wise reply to the averments made in the counter affidavit as hereunder; (a) That in reply to the averments made in Para-1 Table-A of the writ petition is disputed and denied by these opposite parties. It is relevant to mention it here that St.Siridi Sai Education Society is a non-profitable 4 charitable Organisation and it was allotted the mentioned lands for setting up Sai International School, its Hostels for both boys and girls, play ground on 20.1.2007, 31.12.2010 & 14.07.2010 respectively. It is humbly submitted by this deponent that O.P. No.13 was initially allotted Plot No.5/A for setting up of Sai International School which was set up and running since year 2008. Further Sai International School is affiliated to CBSE New Delhi and IGCSE University of Cambridge, U.K. After setting up of the school since the strength of the students increased (within three years, i.e. from 2008 to 2011, the strength of the students has grown up to 1700 apart from other teaching and non-teaching staffs) the school was in need of more land for its expansion for which it submitted application before the IDCO/O.P. No:3 & 4 and pursuant such applications further lands were allotted to the Society for setting up of girls Hostel, Boys Hostel and a Centre of Excellence in a phase manner and also the O.P. No.13 as per the rate fixed by O.P. No.3 & 4 paid the premium. In a short span of three years time, SAI International School has been conferred the International School Award (ISA) for the year 2010-13 by the British Counsel U.K. The students of SAI International School also have brought many laurels for the State including the prestigious “PAINT THE WORLD” contest. This was a global contest and two of the students of SAI have own the 1st and 9th Position respectively in the entire world. They have brought laurels not only for the state but also for the country as well. Thus it is submitted by these Opp. Parties that when the petitioners failed in their all attempts to blackmail these Opp. Parties, the petitioners have filed this writ petition stating all incorrect facts. It is pertinent to mention it here that the assertion made in Sl. No.12 of Table A does not belong to the O.P. No.13 but in order to mislead this Hon’ble Court, the petitioners have shown it to be an allotment in favour of O.P. No.13 as such the said assertions is specifically denied by these Opp. Parties. It is also submitted by these Opp. Parties that the IDCO in consonance with IPR and after following due procedures have allotted land in favour of these O.Ps, so the allegation that such allotment as have been made to the O.P. No.13 is illegal, improper and grossly malafide are specifically denied by this deponent. (b) That with regard to the averments made in Paragraph-1.1 of the writ petition, it is respectfully submitted by this deponent that the petitioners have got no locus standi to challenge the license granted to this deponent by O.P. No.14 to carry on practice as a Chartered Accountant and also it is submitted that no gross unethical practice and professional misconduct has/have been committed by this deponent as this deponent has not obtained any allotment-cum-lease of land either for himself of his family members individually but the land has been allotted to a company/society who fulfilled the criteria set up by the IDCO and as it successfully established the School, more lands as per requirement were allotted in favour of the 5 company/society and their being no embargo for allotment of more than one land in favour of a company/society, the O.P. No 3 & 4 on receipt of the application, after following due procedure have allotted the land. It is further submitted that the averments in this paragraphs that the O.P. Nos. 11 & 12 are related to this deponent or his firm and this deponent either through himself or through his wife, father, daughter is functioning as Chairman, Managing Director or Director or Secretary or vitally interested persons of O.P. No. 11 & 12 are specifically denied by these Opp. Parties. It is clarified by this deponent that either this deponent or its society is no way directly or indirectly connected with O.P. No. 11 & 12. (c) That in reply to the averments made in Paragraph-2 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioners have got no cause of action for filing this writ application as they have already ventilated their grievance before different Courts/ Authorities and some of the proceedings have already culminated in favour of these opposite Opp. parties and some are pending for adjudication. (d) That the averments made in Paragraphs-3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4, 5, 6 & 7 relates to the Civil Suits pending in the different courts. It is relevant to mention it here that C.S. No: 425/2006 filed by the petitioners and co sharers seeking a declaration of occupancy status against the State Government, allegedly on the basis of Hatha Patta from Raja of Pattia is pending in the Court below. In this context it is submitted by these Opp. parties that when the petitioners have already availed their remedy under the common law, the present writ petition cannot be entertained on the same set of allegations and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. (e) That the allegations made in Para-8 are all tissues of false hood and a separate counter is being filed on behalf of O.P. No.11 & 12 as such these averments are specifically denied. It is submitted that the O.P. No.8 has set up the first International Day Boarding School in Orissa by the name of SAI International School. On the demand by the IT majors like Infosys, TCS, Wipro etc to have a good school in Infocity Area, IDCO allotted five acres land to St.Shirdi Sai Education Society to setup a Model Public School of International standard. Accordingly SAI International School has been set up. In a span of three years, SAI International is well known in the entire country and bagged many National as well as International awards. It has been chosen as the best International school by British Council, Government of UK. The students of SAI International School have come out with flying colours in all the examinations including entrance examinations for Engineering, Medical, CLAT and CPT. (f) That the further averments made in Paragraph-8 of the writ petition that O.P. No.8 has inducted his father, wife and his children so also himself as Chairperson, Secretary, Director and Partners etc. of O.P. Nos. 11 & 12 are specifically denied by this Opp. party. It is once again reiterated that either 6 this deponent or any of this family members are stated above are no way connected to the O.P. No.11 & 12 and the petitioners in order to hoodwink have made such false statement on oath as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.” 9. Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, learned Senior Advocate for IDCO, in support of his contentions referred to Clause-9.15 of the Industries Department Resolution dated 2.3.2007, which speaks thus:- “Special thrust shall be laid on promotion of high quality social infrastructure in the form of schools, colleges, technical and professional institutions, hotels, multiplexes, townships, commercial complexes, health- care facilities, leisure & entertainment facilities, resorts, golf courses, tourism areas, etc, through IDCO and private developers. Private developers shall be selected through open competitive bidding process. 10. According to Mr. Patnaik, the aforesaid provision was also there in IPRs of 1996 and 2001. Further referring to Section 15 (c) of the Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1980, he submitted that the Corporation shall have power to allot plots, factory sheds or buildings or part of buildings, including residential tenements, to suitable persons in industrial estates established or developed by the Corporation; He further drew our attention to Section-18, which speaks as follows:- 18. Directions by the State Government-The State Government may issue to the Corporation such general or special directions as to policy as it may think necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act, and the Corporation shall be bound to follow and act upon such directions. 11. According to Mr. Patnaik, the aforesaid IPRs contain directions of the State basing upon which the lands have been allotted as in the IPRs it is specifically indicated that special thrust shall be laid on promotion of high quality social infrastructure in the form of schools, colleges, etc. 12. Before going into the merits of the case, let us consider the maintainability of the writ application as has been questioned by Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for opposite parties 8, 9, 10 and 13. According to him, in the guise of public interest litigation this writ application has been filed to vindicate the personal grievance of the petitioners. There is no element of public interest involved, as the lands were allotted since long and the institutions in question are well running institutions giving employment to many unemployed persons and high quality education to the students. 13. Learned counsel for the State submitted that he has instruction in the matter that the educational institutions set up by opposite party no.8 are well running institutions and now this writ application at a belated stage has been filed by some persons who lay their claims over portions of the lands allotted to opposite parties 9 7 to 13, which, according to the petitioners, have been allotted by a “Hata Patta” of the Zamindar. 14. The petitioners also in the writ application have narrated the details of litigations, between them and the IDCO and between them and opposite party no.8. The said litigations as described in the writ application, also came up to this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3020 of 2009. 15 According to learned counsel for IDCO, in almost all the litigations, the petitioners failed to establish their right over any part of lands, which according to them have been allotted to opposite parties 9 to 13. 16. Now in the aforesaid premises, can we say that this litigation is bona fide ? 17. With regard to the question of maintainability of the writ application, which has been raised by the opposite parties, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon certain decisions:- Placing reliance on the case of Akhila Bharatiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2011) 5 SCC 29, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State and/or its agencies/ instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the political entities and/or officers of the State. Every action/ decision of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to give largesse or confer benefit must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well-defined policy. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the aforesaid procedure/policy has not been followed in this case. Further reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Chaitanya Kumar and others v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1986 SC 825, wherein the apex Court has held that award of contracts to a chosen few is contradictory. According to the petitioners, even though they have made M/s SRB Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., IDCO Tower, represented by Ms. Baijayanti Sahoo, stating her to be the daughter of Sri Bijay Kumar Sahoo, as opposite party no.11 and the fact that she is the daughter of Sri Bijay Kumar Sahoo is disputed, then also the basis on which the allotment has been made in her favour should be probed into. Further reliance was placed by the petitioners on the decision in the case of S.P. Anand Indore v. H.D. Deve Gowda and others, (1996) 6 SCC 734. However this decision has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. Again reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Gourav Jain v. Union of India and others, (1997) 8 SCC 114, wherein it has been indicated that Court can give reliefs in respect of matters which are not even specifically stated in the pleadings with a view to render socio-economic justice and empowerment to handicapped persons and enforce their fundamental rights. 8 Banking upon these decisions, petitioners submission was that they have locus standi to maintain the writ application even though they were locked up in litigations with IDCO and with opposite party no.8-Shri Bijay Kumar Sahoo in certain matters. 18. During pendency of the writ application, some of the residents of village- Patia filed an intervention application through learned counsel Mr. B.P. Tripathy, stating to be sailing on the same boat as that of the writ petitioners. Their allegation is like that of the allegation of the writ petitioners and learned counsel for the interveners also relied upon the decisions, which were relied upon by learned counsel for the writ petitioners. 19. Let us see whether the petitioners as well as the interveners have come to this Court with clean hands and whether they have any locus to maintain the writ application. 20. Public Interest Litigation when entered into the Indian judicial process, its main intention was to vindicate public interest and to help the poor, ignorant and socially or economically disadvantaged persons, whose fundamental and other rights are affected and who are unable to seek legal redress. PILs are entered in other spheres where judicial intervention is necessary like air pollution, sexual harassment, etc. But of late it has become a tool in the hands of unscrupulous persons to vindicate the private interest by abusing the process of Court. 21. In the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors, AIR 2010 SC 2550, the apex Court had issued certain directions in order to preserve the purity and sanctity of P.I.L. One of such conditions being that the Court should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entering a P.I.L. In the case of Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and others, AIR 2004 SC 1923, the apex Court in paragraph-13 has held that “Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest and ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. xxx xxx xxx” In the case of Kushum Lata v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 2643,