Case: Mangal Amusement Park(P) Ltd Vs. State Of M.P

merely on that count. The following observations of this Court in para 35 of Jasbir Singh Chhabra & Ors. vs. State of Punjab reported in 2010 (4) SCC 192 are instructive in this behalf:- “35. It must always be remembered that in a democratic polity like ours, the functions of the Government are carried out by different individuals at different levels. The issues and policy matters which are required to be decided by the Government are dealt with by several functionaries some of whom may record notings on the files favouring a particular person or group of persons. Someone may suggest a particular line of action, which may not be conducive to public interest and others may suggest adoption of a different mode in larger public interest. However, the final decision is required to be taken by the designated authority keeping in view the larger public interest. The notings recorded in the files cannot be made basis for recording a finding that the ultimate decision taken by the Government is tainted by malafides or is influenced by extraneous considerations……” 24. The High Court has held in para 23 of the impugned judgment that in any case admittedly the license had come to an end by efflux of time in the month of the June 2010, and therefore the validity and legality of the letter/order dated 23.9.2003 had become academic, and it was no longer necessary to examine that issue. We cannot find fault with the High Court on that account, since quashing of this letter cannot in any way lead to the renewal of the license which had already expired. Besides, the respondents had valid reasons not to renew the license as indicated in the show cause notice dated 8.1.2007. The construction of Amusement Club or a Banquet Hall could certainly not be a part of a Children’s Amusement Park. The parcel of land was allotted for setting up of a children’s park with games and rides as indicated in the document of license. Additionally, what was permitted were the food and beverages centers, kiosks, shops, administrative building and toilets, which would be in furtherance of this objective. The Banquet Hall and an amusement club which would be used by adults would not fit in the purpose of Children’s Amusement Park. As stated in clause 8 of the show cause notice, it clearly indicated that the appellants did not want to run the activity related to the Children’s amusement park on the land allotted. 25. (i) It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that they had made good investment in the concerned parcel of land with legitimate expectations, and, therefore, the respondents were estopped from discontinuing their allotment on the basis of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. This submission was disputed by Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for IDA. He ,firstly, pointed out that more than half of the land remained un-utilised even 12 years after the allotment, and, in fact, the park was not functioning for quite sometime. The games and rides which were placed on this parcel of land were in the nature of fixtures, and not permanent additions as such, and could be removed therefrom when the appellants were required to vacate. (ii) Having noted these submissions we are of the view that since the document of allotment was a license and not one creating any interest, the provision of renewal contained therein cannot be read as laying down a mandatory requirement. Besides, as stated above, clause 14 of the document of license clearly stated that in the event of violation of any of the terms and conditions on the part of the licensee, the decision of the Chairman of IDA was final. Para 7 of the show cause notice in fact stated that the necessary action to establish the Children’s Amusement Park had not been taken since half of the land had remained undeveloped, and it amounted to violating the conditions of license. The doctrine of promissory estoppel can certainly not be permitted to be invoked on such a background. 26. (i) The appellants had made one more prayer namely to quash and set aside the notification dated 19.11.2003. Section 23-A of the M.P. Act permits the modification of the provisions in the development plan by following the due procedure of law as laid down therein. In the instant case, a notification had been issued earlier on 9.3.2001 inviting the objections to the proposed modification. The appellants were heard with respect to these objections, and thereafter the notification dated 19.11.2003 had been issued approving the proposed modification. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the modification was a motivated one. The appellants submitted that under the modification, a parcel of land in nearby vicinity which was earlier reserved for a green area, was now being permitted for a commercial use, whereas the user of the land which was marked for the Children’s Amusement Park, was being changed to a regional park. This was with a view to accommodate the constructions which had come up on the other parcel of land in the vicinity.(ii) In this connection we must note that the appellants had not joined any of those parties for whose benefit this change had been allegedly made. As held in Girias Investment (P) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in 2008 (7) SCC 53 , in the absence of factual basis, the court is precluded from going into the plea of malafides. As far as the land meant for the Children’s amusement park is concerned, the same was hardly put to the full use. In as much as this entire parcel of land of about 7 acres was not utilized, and since it was an open parcel of land, there was nothing wrong in the State Government deciding to retain it as an open parcel of land, and to change the land-use thereof from commercial to a regional park. The notification cannot be faulted on that count either.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]23. In our view, the appellants have tried to make much ado about the stand which the IDA took on earlier occasions in favour of the appellants. One has to recognise that where different authorities are dealing with a particular subject, it is quite possible that on some occasions, they may take a stand different from each other, though ultimately it is the decision of the competent authority which matters, and it cannot be tainted with mala fides merely on thatnoted these submissions we are of the view that since the document of allotment was a license and not one creating any interest, the provision of renewal contained therein cannot be read as laying down a mandatory requirement. Besides, as stated above, clause 14 of the document of license clearly stated that in the event of violation of any of the terms and conditions on the part of the licensee, the decision of the Chairman of IDA was final. Para 7 of the show cause notice in fact stated that the necessary action to establish theAmusement Park had not been taken since half of the land had remained undeveloped, and it amounted to violating the conditions of license. The doctrine of promissory estoppel can certainly not be permitted to be invoked on such awas with a view to accommodate the constructions which had come up on the other parcel of land in the vicinity.In this connection we must note that the appellants had not joined any of those parties for whose benefit this change had been allegedly made. As held in Girias Investment (P) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in 2008 (7) SCC 53 , in the absence of factual basis, the court is precluded from going into the plea of malafides. As far as the land meant for theamusement park is concerned, the same was hardly put to the full use. In as much as this entire parcel of land of about 7 acres was not utilized, and since it was an open parcel of land, there was nothing wrong in the State Government deciding to retain it as an open parcel of land, and to change the land-use thereof from commercial to a regional park. The notification cannot be faulted on that count