GANDHINAGAR CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Articles 226 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner trust for the purpose of challenging the issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 16.05.2002 and sought incidental main reliefs which are contained in para:17 of the petition, which reads as under:

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a public charitable trust setup for the purpose of imparting education at Gandhinagar by establishing Educational Institution. Originally, the petitioner was given a grant of the land for that purpose. However, the said grant of land was sought to be cancelled on the ground that it was obtained by favoritism since at the relevant point of time the Chief Minister was one of the trustees of the trust. As a result of this, said allotment order was cancelled which was the subject matter of litigation before this Court. On 29.04.1997, a decision was taken originally to allot the land to the Gandhinagar trust in Sector - 8 of Gandhinagar. So much so on 09.07.1997 after completion of formalities even Sanad in the month of July, 1997 also came to be issued to Gandhinagar trust i.e. present petitioner. Later on, after a lapse of two years, practically on 07.07.1999 the grant of land and Sanad was cancelled as a result of which the petitioner was constrained to prefer a writ petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No.4938 of 1999 and Special Civil Application No.4909 of 1997 challenging the said cancellation of grant of land. The High Court vide order dated 21.09.2000 was pleased to dismiss the petition. Pursuant to said decision, the said order was carried further. Ultimately, Special Leave Petitions were filed challenging the order of High Court which were numbered as Special Leave Petition No.17776 of 2000 and Special Leave Petition No.17777 of 2000. The same was decided on 29.08.2001. The Apex Court while allowing said SLPs set aside the judgment of the High Court and observed that allegations of favoritism are wholly uncalled for and Committee has taken several non-existing and erroneous factors in consideration. Resultantly, on 22.11.2001, the petitioner trust applied for seeking development permission. Surprisingly despite having such background of litigation the said authority once again issued Show Cause Notice on substantially very same ground which was subject matter of previous proceedings and the said notice was issued on 16.05.2002. The petitioner in compliance with the said notice submitted reply on 08.07.2002 inter alia pointing out the details of chronology of events which took place right upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court and consequently requested the authority to recall the notice and even additional reply came to be submitted on 21.09.2002. Since nothing further progressed the petitioner trust on 23.08.2004 was again constrained to make a request to State Authority to close the proceedings in view of explanation which was already given. On 22.01.2001 an application for grant of development permission was submitted reflecting on page:62 of the petition compilation which was dealt with and vide communication dated 11.01.2002 the development permission was rejected. This communication appears to have been issued by Junior Town Planner of Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority.

(3.) The petitioner trust as a result of this had filed a petition challenging the Show Cause Notice as well as consequentially sought direction to grant development permission. The same was registered as Special Civil Application No.5034 of 2008. The learned Single Judge did not grant any interim relief. As a result of this petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1519 of 2009 and on 12.08.2009 the Division Bench of this Court directed the State Government to take appropriate decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of order but it appears that no application for extension was made even after lapse of two months period. The said order has further clarified, which is reflecting on page:97 of the petition compilation, that till decision is taken on the objection filed by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice, allotment of land to the petitioner may not be cancelled. In these proceedings later on, on 02.09.2008, the State Government filed its reply and observed in para:3.10 of the reply that no progress has been made because the officer has retired and police inquiry is initiated against concerned officer. The said affidavit is part of the record on page:63 of the petition compilation. Nonetheless, the State Government was under an obligation to take decision within a period of two months which undisputedly is not taken so far. Even in affidavit-in-reply which has been filed on 14.09.2016, no reasons are assigned or forthcoming as to how so far no decision is taken by the State Government.