CHAIRMAN & CEO Vs. MANGE RAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, we will dispose of the above Interlocutory Application filed on behalf of Dr. G.P. Pathak. The prayer in this application is that this Court should modify para 4 of the directions contained in the order dated 30th July, 2012. While making the above prayer, it is submitted that the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) has published a policy in furtherance to order of this Court and in clause 3 made a criteria which renders the applicant ineligible for obtaining a second plot under the same scheme. The contention is that under the general schemes floated by the NOIDA, a person is entitled to get two plots and can even take two adjacent plots. Such allotment is required to be made by the authority and there is no restriction. However, the scheme framed under the orders of the Court is placing the applicant at a disadvantageous position. Para 4 of the directions contained in order dated 30th July, 2012 reads as under :

(2.) There is no dispute to the fact that the applicant was running a clinic in the residential area and has to close the same activity in furtherance to the orders of this Court. He would be entitled to apply under the 'Special Scheme' formulated by the NOIDA under the order of the Court. The question is as to whether under the 'Special Scheme', the applicant can claim two plots We have no hesitation in answering the said question in the negative. This is a 'Special Scheme' floated by NOIDA as per the directions of this Court. It is not a 'General Scheme' floated by NOIDA of its own. The terms and conditions applicable under 'General Scheme' floated by NOIDA will have such eligibility criteria and terms and conditions that NOIDA in its wisdom finds suitable and in consonance with its policy. Such 'General Scheme' may permit grant of double benefit i.e. the party may be a successful bidder even in two plots. To the contrary under the 'Special Scheme' no person can be permitted to derive double benefit even if a person was running two clinics or two small nursing homes in the hospital area. He can easily club both such clinics or nursing homes and build a common hospital just by raising additional construction as may be permissible. It is not disputed before us that the applicant has already got a plot for establishing a nursing home and in fact he has already built a nursing home there. We see no reason why he should get double benefit under the court directed 'Special Scheme'. We do not see any necessity to alter or modify para 4 of the directions contained in the order dated 30th July, 2012. Consequentially, there is also no requirement for modification of clause 3 of the 'Special Scheme' floated by the NOIDA which debars a person who has already been given a plot. We do not think that there was any occasion for the NOIDA even to introduce clause 3. In fact, we direct its deletion. Nobody would get two plots under this 'Special Scheme'.

(3.) We make it clear that the net worth of a tenderer would be of no consideration for giving such applicant two plots as the plots are being allotted in furtherance of the orders of the Court and, thus, could not be used as an instrument for providing state largesse in a manner not contemplated in terms of the judgment.