AJAI KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition designed and styled as Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner Ajai Kumar Singh, a Practicing Advocate. It is directed against the auction of certain commercial plots situate at Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Scheme of Lucknow Development Authority. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the allotment as held in pursuance of the auction notices. It is further prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to stop constructions on the allotted lands and a direction may be issued to the C.B.I. to inquire into the matter and submit its report to this Court.

(2.) THE petitioner has come with a case that as a practising Advocate he has opportunity of interacting with people belonging to different walk of life and incidentally he met some prospective bidders of the land in question who have filtered out certain informations which reveals deliberate activities of the respondents with an ulterior motive to fill up there wallets resulting in heavy losses to the public exchequer. The authorities are functioning in utter violation of the provisions and spirit of the Constitution. Authorities had been charged with corruption. It is alleged that two tender notices were published on 14.06.2005 and 16.06.2005, annexures 1 and 2 in a daily Hindi Newspaper for auction of commercial plots in Vibhuti Khand of the Gomti Nagar Scheme for Group Housing and Shops. On a bare reading of the tender notices it transpired that the rate of land per sq.mt. is nearly 3 times lesser than the rate of fixed for the land in the vicinity. The reserved rate of land is fixed for Rs.6000 per sq.mt. whereas the rate in the open market is more than Rs.15,000 per sq.mt. The same was done to benefit certain builders. It is alleged that in the vicinity within one kilometer distance at Viraj Khand the property was auctioned on the quoted price of Rs.17,000/- per sq.mt and in the same way in Vastu Khand some commercial plots were auctioned at the rate of Rs.16000 to 30,000 per sq.mt. Respondents created an opportunity to extract heavy illegal gratification by not providing in the auction notices Floor Area Ratio and ground coverage. It is always provided in every auction notice in terms of the byelaws of the Development Authority.

(3.) LUCKNOW Mahayojna 2021 framed by the Government provides that the land in question may be used for commercial category but in the instant case in utter disregard to the specific provision the land has been auctioned to the builders for group housing. The respondents/the officers of Lucknow Development Authority are indulging in corruption in furtherance of the same a scheme of Gomti Nagar Phase II was advertised. The advertisement was not made in major newspapers of circulation. The dates for submission of tender were fixed for 12.1.2006 to 17.1.2006 while 14.1.2006 and 15.1.2006 were holidays. It is further averred that in thecreation of Lohia Park, Gomti Nagar a sum of Rs.50 crores have already been spent by the Lucknow Development Authority and the same has been counter signed by the Secretary of the Lucknow Development Authority but the then Secretary refused to sign the same. It is further urged that the petitioner incidentally met some prospective bidders of the land in question who have filtered out information of unwarranted conditions provided in the auction notice. Accordingly the instant petition has been filed to bring these facts to the notice of the court. Thus the petitioner's case is that the reserve price of the plots in question was kept 1/3rd of market rate of the land with a view to extend benefit to certain bidders and further LDA fixed certain arbitrary conditions like quantum of solvency and earnest money for different sizes of the plots. The Floor Area Ratio has been given to the builders much more than the prescribed Floor Area Ratio. The allotment of plot to the builders of the choice is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The auction was not fair, accordingly petitioner has filed the Public Interest Litigation alleging himself to be the public spirited person. Respondent nos. 2 to 6 have contested the petition. They have filed joint counter affidavit and denied allegations made in the petition in toto. The case of respondents on factual aspect is as under;