KUSHAL K RANA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 16th May, 2011 to get an order quashing the allotment order dated 26th March, 2011 of the Plot No. C-001, Sector-16, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter in short called as the "plot/land in question') issued by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (in short called as "Noida') in favour of a private limited company, namely, M/s. ET Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., the Respondent No. 4 herein, as well as lease deed dated 13th July, 2010 of the said plot executed in favour of Respondent No. 4 by Noida. The Petitioner further seeks direction for an investigation to be made regarding entire process of allotment as well as procurement of the plot in question by the Respondent No. 4 from the Noida, if necessary by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short called as "CBI), the Respondent No. 3 herein.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner, according to him, is that he had booked a space/area measuring 5000 square feet with the Respondent No. 4 i.e. a private limited company, which was developing a shopping mall in the name of World Trade Tower (WTT) at Sector-16, Noida (Gautam Buddha Nagar), Uttar Pradesh. The Petitioner has already made necessary payments amounting to Rs. 10 lacs as advance by means of Cheque No. 227561 dated 21st July, 2010. However, no allotment letter was issued by the Respondent No. 4 to the Petitioner inspite of repeated requests. On the contrary, the Petitioner was asked to pay more than half of the amount in cash and when the Petitioner refused to do so, the Respondent No. 4 stopped giving any response to the Petitioner. The Petitioner made necessary enquiries about affairs of such company and, according to him, he was shocked to find out that it is a major scam from the date of pre-allotment/tendering to allocation and getting permission etc. as well. The Respondent No. 4 cheated and bribed the Noida officials to get allotment by completely flouting the Rules and norms and conspiring with the authorities, thereby causing heavy loss to the State exchequer. Entire bidding and the allotment have been managed and masterminded by the Respondent No. 4 and it appears that Noida authorities were also involved in the entire episode.

(3.) In further, on the basis of the information received under the Right to Information Act, 2005 the Petitioner came to know that the plot in question initially belonged to Central Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter in short called as "CWC') and the same was to be made available to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (in short called as "DMRC') for its requirement as per DPR provisions, as this Section of DMRC was operational and DMRC was not being provided land so far. The Petitioner contended that under the Right to Information Act he was provided with a correspondence dated 13th June, 2006 made between the Noida and CWC, which clearly reveals that the land in question was required by DMRC and, as such, the Noida authority requested the CWC to provide its land and it was further stated that the Noida authority shall provide an alternate land to CWC alongwith the super structure as existing. According to the Petitioner, CWC provided the aforesaid land to the Noida authority on the aforesaid understanding. Noida authority entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with DMRC to make available the aforesaid land. CWC was asked to vacate the land in question in view of the requirement of DMRC. The land was subsequently vacated by CWC but the same was never handed over to DMRC and its requirement and claim towards total land measuring 22482.37 square meters still remains. The Petitioner further contended that advertisement of land in question for commercial purpose and the bidding process were not proper. Appropriate advertisement was not made to allot the land for commercial purpose. Entire bidding was fixed or managed by the Respondents. The land was managed for the Respondent No. 4 for construction of mall ignoring the requirement of DMRC. The land was allotted to the Respondent No. 4, a private company, in the name of one M/s. Electro herm Infra Developers (Consortium), another company, the Respondent No. 5 herein, vide impugned order dated 26th March, 2010. As per rule, names of all partners of consortium must be in the allotment letter but the name of any consortium partner has not been given in the allotment letter dated 26th March, 2010. There was some mistake in the allotment order in respect of the plot number, which was changed by a further letter dated 03rd August, 2010 issued to the Respondent No. 5.