RANCHHODBHAI NAGJIBHAI THESIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd respondent, Surat Municipal Corporation, invited tenders for allotment of development rights in respect of 36500 sq. metres of land, bearing Final Plot Nos. 143 and 144 of Town Planning Scheme No.8 (Umarwada) and the tender notification was published on 25.3.1999. Pursuant to the notification, respondents 4 and 5 submitted tenders and the matter was kept for final decision by the Standing Committee of the respondent-Corporation. Then the present Special Civil Application was filed and the petitioner moved for interim stay and the learned single Judge, before whom the matter came up for consideration, passed an interim order, restraining the respondent-Corporation from taking any action whatsoever in furtherance or pursuance of the tender notice dated 26.3.1999 and from finalizing the tender in the name of any person, firm or company whatsoever. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the entire procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent for disposal of the development rights in respect of the aforesaid land, bearing Final Plot Nos. 143 and 144 of Town Planning Scheme No.8. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent-Corporation to reissue proper tender notice, giving Nationwide publicity, and after formalizing express and clear terms and conditions of the tender in a manner which would ensure optimum price to the respondent-Corporation.

(2.) In the Special Civil Application, the petitioner has alleged that the tender notice was published only in two local dailies, viz., `Gujarat Samachar' and `Sandesh' and that there was no wide publicity. It is also alleged that the terms and conditions of the tender notice are vague and misleading and that the 2nd and 3rd respondents have suppressed the real value of the property. It is alleged that the entire property is occupied by hutment dwellers and transport operators, and without evicting them, the Corporation will not be in a position to give vacant possession for the developmental activities and the proposed sale of the property at this stage is only to enable certain persons to get the same at a low price. It is alleged by the petitioner that though 28 persons had purchased the tender forms, because of the vague nature of the conditions of the tender, only four persons have submitted their bids and two of them had not given the Earnest Money Deposit (E.M.D.) and only two have submitted proper tender forms and the value quoted by them is very low. According to the petitioner, this land must have fetched value more than Rs.240.00 crores and the Transport Association, whose members are in occupation of some portion of the land, had offered to purchase it for Rs.240.00 crores.

(3.) Denying the allegations in the petition, the Town Planner, attached to the 2nd respondent-Corporation, has filed an affidavit-in-reply. It is denied that the conditions in the tender notification are vague. It is further pointed out that adequate steps have been taken to get the Transport Operators as well as the hutment dwellers evicted from the property in question. The Transport Operators had filed a writ petition, i.e. Special Civil Application No.3016 of 1999, and the same was disposed of on merits by judgment dated 3.5.1999 and that judgment was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P. and the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court. It is submitted that the public notice, inviting tenders, was published in 24 daily newspapers all throughout the country. As regards valuation of the property, it is submitted that as per the revenue record, the land in question is valued at Rs.18,000.00 per sq. metre, whereas the upset price was fixed by the Corporation at Rs.45,000.00 per sq. metre, which is about 2.5 times more than the value reflected in the revenue records. As regards the terms and conditions of the tender notice, it is submitted that the matter was deliberated at length and in a joint meeting of the Commissioner, Director of Planning, Advisor, City Engineer, Town Development Officer, Town Planner and various other Officers and only after taking all relevant aspects into consideration, the upset price was fixed and the earnest money deposit was fixed at 25% of the total upset price and the balance amount of the tender was to be deposited within 30 days, i.e. before the submission of the building plans. It is also pointed out that the present transport godowns are located in this land and these godowns have to be shifted so as to prevent traffic congestion in that area. Other allegations made in the Special Civil Application are also denied in the affidavit-in-reply.