IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2553 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.2.2009 Harmeet Singh Grewal ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms. Tanisha Peshwaria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Anupam Gupta, Senior Standing Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh. T.S. Thakur, C.J. (Oral). This petition has been filed in public interest. It calls in question an advertisement marked Annexure P.3 issued by the U.T. Administration, inviting “Expression of Interest” for what is described as a “Medicity Project” at Chandigarh. The challenge proceeds primarily on the plea that the project conceived by the U.T. Administration is against public interest and that the same will not, in any way, help provide affordable health care facilities to the citizens of Chandigarh. A mandamus directing the respondents to allot smaller plots of land for the project in an open auction, has also been prayed for. For facility of reference, the prayer made in the petition may at this stage be extracted:- “It is, therefore, prayed:- 1) That the invitation to Expression of Interest for the proposed Medicity project (Annexure P.3), be quashed CWP No.2553 of 2008 (O&M) (2) and set aside as the project in its present form is against public interest. 2) That Respondents be directed to reconceive the Chandigarh Medicity Project in public interest in order to ensure that health care facilities are provided to the citizens at an affordable price. 3) In the alternative, it is prayed that the Respondents be directed to give the land for the project in small parts or a whole in open auction with reasonable conditions and not to lease out the same to any company to run a business venture of Medical Education and Hospitals. 4) It is further prayed that respondents be directed not to proceed with the Medicity Project in furtherance of invitation to Expression of Interest (Annexure P.3), during the pendency of this petition. 5) It is also prayed that filing of certified copies of Annexures P.1 to P.8 be dispensed with. 6) Or any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, be passed.” In response to the notice issued by this Court, the U.T., Administration has filed a comprehensive counter affidavit sworn by Mrs. Raji P. Shrivastava, IAS, Special Secretary, Finance and Project Director, Chandigarh Administration, in which the respondents have tried to justify on several grounds the proposed project with private public partnership. The affidavit also attempts to justify the terms and conditions for determining the eligibility of those, who can bid for the project as per the impugned advertisement notice (Annexure P.3). The affidavit further points out that the Administration has taken a decision to shift the project site from Village Raipur Kalan to a place near the I.T. Park Phase-III, where an area measuring 45 acres with a cushion for about 5-7 acres, is conveniently CWP No.2553 of 2008 (O&M) (3) available for the same. In the replication filed by the petitioner to the said counter affidavit, several issues have been raised, including those relating to the conditions of eligibility stipulated by the Administration. It is stated by the petitioner that the companies, which are not currently running a hospital, have been made ineligible to apply for the project, even when such companies otherwise have the ability and resources to establish and run the proposed Medicity Project. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner filed CM No. 24584 of 2008 and placed on record certain newspaper articles marked Annexures P.9-A to P.9-C. The application, inter-alia, points out that the Administration has shifted the project site from Raipur Kalan, as originally advertised in the Expression of Interest, to a place near the I.T. Park. The petitioner has found fault with this change also on several grounds, including the ground that the same is against the master plan of Chandigarh. It is also alleged that the Master Plan of Chandigarh, has not been adhered to, by the Administration, while conceptualising the project and that no clearance or permission has been sought from the Central Agencies, like Ministry of Environment and Town Planning etc. It is alleged that the reserve price for the project consisting of 45 acres of prime land has been fixed at Rs.203.70 crores, whereas the actual value, as per the assessment of the officials, of the land now proposed to be given for the project is more than Rs.2000 crores. The petitioner has also raised the issue regarding the bona-fides behind the change of the site after the publication of the Expression of Interest. Shri Gupta, counsel appearing for the Administration, argued CWP No.2553 of 2008 (O&M) (4) that while it was correct that the project was originally planned to come up at village Raipur Kalan, from where the same has now been shifted to a location near I.T. Park, Chandigarh, but the change was necessitated because of a Warehousing Complex, which the Administration now proposes to set up at the original site, because of its proximity to the Railway Station. The allegation that the changed site is unsuited for the Medicity Project for any reason or the same is contrary to the master plan of Chandigarh, etc., is stoutly denied by the Administration. Shri Gupta, further stated that the petitioner's effort to challenge the bona-fides behind the change of the site, were also without any basis, whatsoever, and that the change of site was not intended to benefit any particular group or individual interested in bidding for the project. Having said that, Shri Gupta submitted on instructions from the Administrator of U.T., Administration that since there has been a change in the location of the project from Raipur Kalan, to near I.T. Park, Chandigarh, the Administration would invite fresh Expression of Interest from the intending parties before taking any further steps in the matter. This would, according to Shri Gupta, imply that no further steps, based on the earlier Expression of Interest or the process undertaken on the basis thereof, shall be taken till such time fresh advertisements are issued by the Administration and all those interested in bidding for the project, considered for the same, on the terms and conditions stipulated for the purpose. The statement made by Shri Gupta, in our opinion, renders the entire controversy in the present proceedings academic, for the present. If no allotment of the project is being made on the basis of the impugned advertisement notice issued by the Administration, it is unnecessary to CWP No.2553 of 2008 (O&M) (5) examine whether the project itself suffers from any infirmity as alleged by the petitioner, whether on account of its being contrary to the master plan of Chandigarh or otherwise. All such issues can, in our opinion, be left open to be examined at an appropriate stage in appropriate proceedings, should the Administration decide to invite fresh Expression of Interest on the terms already stipulated or on any other terms, which it may decide to stipulate. In that view, therefore, all that we need say is that the petitioner shall be free to file a fresh petition as and when such fresh Expressions of Interest are invited by the Administration and raise all such contentions as may be available to him to question the project and its location as also the various stages or the processes connected therewith. So also the respondents would be free to question the maintainability of any such petition or the locus of the petitioner to file the same. The present writ petition is with the above observations disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. (T.S. THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 12-02-2009 ds