- (1.)THE petitioner has preferred the petition for appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the action of respondent No. 2 in proceeding to give away and grant administration of the Community Science Centre, Rajkot to any other non-governmental organization as per the decision contained in the advertisement dated 1. 5. 2001. It is also prayed by the petitioner to issue appropriate directions to respondent No. 2 to continue the petitioner Trust in the administration of joint venture project set up as Community Science Centre at Rajkot.
(2.)IT appears that this Court on 6. 5. 2002 had passed the following order:-
"in pursuance of the notice issued by this court, learned advocate Shri A. K. Clerk has appeared for respondent No. 2.

2]. Learned advocate Shri Clerk appearing for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the petitioner has no legally subsisting right to continue to manage the science centre which is being run jointly by respondent no. 2 Corporation, the petitioner and some other charitable institutions. It has been further submitted by him that some agreements have been entered into between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent corporation on the other. By virtue of the said agreements, which had been executed on 1st May 1997 and 29th October 1999, management of the science centre was handed over to the petitioner for a limited period. By efflux of time, the said agreement has come to an end and, therefore, the petitioner has no right to continue to remain in management of the science centre. Moreover, it has been submitted that the matter pertains to contractual rights of the parties which can be decided by a civil court and therefore this court should not entertain this petition.

3]. I have heard the learned advocates and after hearing Sr. Advocate Shri Nanavati and learned advocate shri Clerk, it appears that before the agreements referred to by learned advocate Shri Clerk had been executed, the Standing Committee of the respondent corporation had passed certain resolutions whereby it appears that the management of the science centre was to remain with the petitioner without any reference to the time-limit. Moreover, it also appears that the first MOU dated 4th July 1991 did not deal with any time limit and especially in view of the fact that the land, which has been used for the purpose of construction of planetarium, science centre, etc. , belongs to the petitioner, prima facie it appears that ignoring the resolutions passed by the Standing Committee and the earlier agreement dated 4th July 1991, the respondent Corporation could not have invited applications from other charitable institutions for the purpose of management of the science centre.

4]. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by learned government Pleader Shri A. D. Oza for respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Shri A. K. Clerk for respondent No. 2.

5]. So far as interim relief is concerned, after hearing the learned advocates, in my opinion, it would be just and proper for the respondent Corporation to consider all applications received by it with regard to management of the science centre. It has been submitted by Sr. Advocate Shri Nanavati that without prejudice to the right of the petitioner, the petitioner has already applied for management of the science centre. If the petitioner is selected for management of the science centre, the petitioner shall be permitted to manage the science centre, but if the petitioner is not selected, the decision shall not be implemented but shall be placed before this court so that further orders can be passed after knowing the final decision of the Corporation. It is clarified that the decision which might be taken by the Corporation would be subject to the result of this petition.

6]. Looking to the facts of the case, hearing of this petition is ordered to be expedited. "

(3.)THEREFORE, this Court had given opportunity to the respondents to decide the applications of all concerned, but the implementation was stayed and the decision was to be subject to the further orders of this Court.