Case: M/S. Holicow Pictures Pvt.Ltd Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra

3. The writ petition was filed, and was claimed to be, in public interest. The respondent described himself as the Chief Spokesperson of the Indian National Congress, a recognized political party. His party contested the previous election in alliance with the party that was in power at that time. The alliance got worsted in the election and Congress party was returned as a poor fourth. Respondent no.5 is a private limited company; it is represented through a person who isker but who also takes part in electoral politics. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it was stated that Prakash Jha had fought the 2004 Lok Sabha Election from the Bettiah Lok Sabha Constituency. It is further stated that in. the last assembly election held in2005 though not a candidate himself, he addressed public meetings jointly with the present Chief Minister in various parts of the State. As both the petitioner and said Prakash Jha are political persons, it is not surprising that the pleadings are heavy with political invectives.4. In the writ petition, it was stated that the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") has given large areas of land at various places to respondent no.5 at throwaway prices. It was further stated that allotments of land were made to respondent no.5 without issuing any notice, inviting competitive bids, and the land areas were granted to respondent no.5 at very cheap rates without following the established norms and procedure. According to him the market value of the said land plots was much higher. For instance, in Patliputra Industrial Area, Patna one acre land was given to respondent no.5 for Rs.14,65,000.00. This piece of land should have fetched the State about rupees five crores if allotments were to be made on the basis of competitive bidding. It was also stated that in a blatant show of favour, respondent no.5 was also given the Authoritys Office building along with the land in Patliputra Industrial Area. The favour was crowned by putting a very low value for the building. It was also alleged that the action of the State Government/Authority in granting to respondent no.5 land at different places was an act of malafide and called for institution of criminal cases against the concerned people and an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.5. The writ petition, in brief, made three allegations. (i) land plots were given to respondent no.5 at different places in the. State without issuing any notice, inviting bids and at value far below the market price of those land plots, (ii) the allotmentwas made without following any norms or procedure and (iii) the action of the State Government caused heavy loss to the State; the action was based on political considerations and was, therefore, malafide.6. The respondents in the writ petition questioned bonafides of the writ petitioner. They took the stand that there was nothing illegal and the entire action was bonafide in the greater interests of the State. It was pointed out that the malafides of the writ petitioner are clear from the fact that the writ petitioner did not question legality of the action of the then State Government who had in the year 1996 allotted the land in the Patliputra Industrial areas to one M/s Dynax Digital Studio (Ind) Pvt. Ltd. for consideration of Rs.5.5 lakhs. The allotment made was subsequently cancelled and the consideration for allotment was fixed by raising the land value at the rate of 10% only as provided in Govt. letter dated 17.7.1982. It was also submitted that the petition was an abuse of Public Interest Litigation and deserves to be rejected outright.7. After referring to the various stands, ultimately, the High Court came to observe that there was more than what met the eye and the allotment of land plots to respondent no.5 was done in a thoroughly irregular manner and the allotments are completely untenable. So far as the charge of malafides is concerned the States submission was accepted by giving "benefit of doubt". It was, however, observed that the authorities were in a hurry to go for private investment and that might have led toto some of the official norms was held to be completely unacceptable. The writ petition was disposed of with following observations andthe facts and circumstances discussed above, I reject the allegation of malafide. But at the same time, I am unable to accept the submission that the Court should not interfere in the matter because the writ petition may not qualify as Public Interest Litigation. In view of the facts coming to its notice, the only proper course for the Court is to intervene and to set things right. I therefore, feel constrained to interfere with the allotments made by the Authority in favour of respondent No.5. All the allotments of lands made in favour of respondent No. 5 are accordingly quashed. The Authority is directed to resume possession of the lands. It will be open to respondent no. 5 to make fresh applications with proper Project Reports and supporting documents for allotment of lands to it at different centres. In case such applications made, the authority shall consider them in accordance with lac and take a decision on those applications within three months of the date of their receipt in its office. It will be open to respondent No.5 either to get back all its money deposited with the Authority or in case it makes fresh applications to wait till the final decision on those applications is taken by the Authority. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. There will be no order as to costs."

Reasoning:
26. It is true that in certain cases even though the Court comes to the conclusion that the writ petition was not in a public interest, yet if it finds that there is scope for dealing with the matter further in greater public interest, it can be done. This can be done by keeping the writ petitioner out of picture and appointing an amicus curiae. This can only be done in exceptional cases and not in a routine manner.27. It is true as contented by learned counsel for the appellant that the High Courts conclusions were drawn after going through the files. It is apparent from records that the High Court did not ask the parties to clarify any doubt it entertained as regards certain crucial aspects. These aspects assume considerable importance because they have formed the foundation of the High Courts conclusions about irregularity/illegality in allotment.28. In the circumstances we set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration. Needless to say the parties shall be permitted to place material in support of their respective stand, in addition to those which are already on record and the High Court shall thereafter take a decision in the matter within four weeks. Further affidavits shall be filed with all relevant details/documents by the parties. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.