NOIDA ENTREPRENEURS ASSOCIATION Vs. NOIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Legislature of Uttar Pradesh enacted the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as Rs. Act 1976) for the purpose of proper planning and development of industrial and residential units and to acquire and develop the land for the same. The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Rs. Authority), has been constituted under the said Act, 1976. The object of the Act had been that genuine and deserving entrepreneurs may be provided industrial and residential plots and other necessary amenities and facilities. Thus, in order to carry out the aforesaid object, a new township came into existence. All the activities in the Authority had to be regulated in strict adherence to all the statutory provisions contained in relevant Acts, Rules and Regulations framed for this purpose. However, from the very inception of the township, there has always been a public hue and cry that officials responsible for managing the Authority are guilty of manipulation, nepotism and corruption. Wild and serious allegations of a very high magnitude had been leveled against some of the officials carrying out the responsibilities of implementing the Act and other statutory provisions.

(2.) The instant writ petition was originally filed seeking a large number of reliefs including the allotment of industrial and residential plots to the members of the Petitioner-Association and a large number of officials who had acted as Chief Executive Officers (hereinafter referred to as Rs. CEO) of the Authority had been impleaded therein as Respondents. However, considering the fact that relief for personal benefits of the members had been sought and alternative means for seeking the redressal of grievances in that respect were available, the Petitioner made a request to the Court that its petition may be treated as a public interest litigation (in short Rs. PIL) for a limited purpose. This Court vide order dated 21.4.1997 treated the matter as PIL and issued show cause notice only to the extent of the following reliefs:

(3.) Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior counsel who had been appearing for the Petitioner in the matter was requested by this Court vide order dated 29.8.1997 to act as Amicus Curiae. The matter was heard several times by this Court and after scrutinizing of a very large number of documents, the Court was of the opinion that the allegations made in the petition required investigation. Thus, vide order dated 15.12.1997, this Court issued notice to the State of U.P. to indicate its consent to an investigation being made by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI), in view of the very serious nature of the allegations. The State of U.P. had also received similar complaints and thus, it constituted a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Murtaza Hussain, a former Judge of Allahabad High Court to enquire about the same. The Commission completed its task and submitted its report. The said report was also placed before this Court in the first week of January 1998. As the report indicated, prima facie view of the Commission, that Mrs. Neera Yadav, IAS, Respondent No. 7 had committed serious irregularities and illegalities, a copy of the report of the Commission was also directed to be given to her and this Court vide order dated 6.1.1998 asked the State of U.P. as to whether this report had been accepted by the State Government and, if so, what was the likely follow up measure pursuant thereto. The State Government submitted a reply in response to the said show cause pointing out that the State Government proposed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her.