KAMAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the decision of the respondents to sell Holiday Homes, situated in different States of India at throwaway prices, and for the issuance of directions to the respondents to hold a public auction, in case Holiday Homes are sold.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be the Chairman of an Organization, namely, "Illaqa Sudhar Committee, Ropar", and an active social worker. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner was shocked to read a news item, published in "The Tribune", dated 18.4.2005 to the effect that prime properties of Punjab Tourism Development Corporation, located in five major holiday destinations, namely, Goa, Jaipur, Mussourie, Manali and Dharamshala have been sold for a paltry sum of Rs. 2.5 crores to a UK based businessman Bob Kalur. It is further averred that each of these properties is worth more than Rs. 5 crores, and sale thereof for a paltry amount, without holding a public auction, is contrary to public interest and, therefore, the impugned action be set aside and the Punjab Tourism Development Corporation be directed to hold a public auction.

(3.) COUNSEL for the State of Punjab, as also counsel for the Corporation contend that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balco Employees Union (Regd) v. Union of India, 2002(2) SCT 12 (SC) : (2002)2 SCC 333, decisions, taken by the government, in exercise of its administrative powers, more particularly with respect to disinvestment, cannot be challenged in public interest litigation. It is contended that decision to disinfest and to sell properties, belonging to the Corporation, are bona fide and arrived at, after a considered decision by the Disinvestment Committee. The entire process was transparent and as averred in the reply, was finalized by way of global tenders. It is further contended that the present petition be dismissed, as the petitioner has failed to place any material on record that would indicate that the price, quoted by the successful party, was, in any manner, deficient and did not reflect the value of the rights that are sought to be transferred to the successful bidder. It is further argued that the present petition is not in public interest as on account of changes in economic policy, disinvestment of loss making government organizations is prudent economic policy and, therefore, the public interest claimed, in essence, seeks to nullify the economically prudent policy of disinvestment.