- (1.)Pursuant to Misc. Civil Application No.1129 of 2011 (Review Application) preferred by Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan (hereinafter referred to as "BVB".) through its Attorney Shri T.G.L. Iyer, Civil Lines, Nagpur with a prayer to recall the Judgment dated 12 th October, 2011, we had heard the parties and by order dated 26 th April, 2012, we had recalled the Judgment dated 12 th October, 2011 and restored the Public Interest Petition No.74 of 2010 for hearing afresh.
(2.)The challenge was to the action of local Planning Authority Nagpur Improvement Trust (hereafter referred to as "N.I.T.") for allotment of the land, which was reserved in the Development Plan for Primary School, Secondary School and Playground to Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, an educational Institution/Trust. The petition was accepted as a Public interest Litigation pursuant to orders of the learned Senior Judge of the Bench at Nagpur dt.2.12.2010 and 6.12.2010 and notices were issued to the respondents named in the P.I.L.
(3.)The grievance of the BVB is that it had proposed to start the Primary and Secondary School of CBSE pattern in English Medium on the ground that it is required in Khasra No.12, mouza Bhamti (BhamtiParsodi Street Scheme) in the City of Nagpur. But the entire tender process was set aside by this Court initiated by etender, dated 06/09/2010. According to the BVB, there was no challenge in the petition that the area of the School has been increased and the area reserved for the playground is decreased without following the procedure according to law. According to the BVB, the Writ Petitioners had not challenged noncommunication of the decision taken in the prebid meeting to the general public. According to the BVB, the minutes of the prebid meeting were communicated on the web site 'www nittenders com' on 01/10/2010 and the last date for the submission of the bid was 20/10/2010. According to the BVB, there was no challenge to violation of the Development Plan by reduction of the playground by allowing a restaurant in the residential Zone. The BVB contended that the restaurant was not meant for the general public nor for their school. It was a Canteen strictly for the refreshment for the people coming to the playground to be conducted by the Contractor appointed by the Nagpur Improvement Trust (N.I.T.). It is further contended that there is no plan for the commercial activity. The restaurant is to situate at the Corner occupying 90 Sq. Meters out of 13537 Sq. Meters within the permissible Zone. According to the BVB, there is no violation of the Development Regulations 2000 for Nagpur City and the dominant user will not change. It is also contended by the BVB that the public interest would not be injured/affected by the Restaurant/canteen as it is for the people using the playground. Further, according to the BVB, the Writ Petitioners had not challenged the fact that the last date for the submission of etender was 05/10/2010 and opening has been on 05/10/2010, but the resolution to participate in the tender process was made by the BVB at Mumbai on 15/10/2010. According to the BVB, the tender process was extended by the N.I.T. till 20/10/2010 by publishing the corrigendum on 30/09/2010 in the newspapers "The Hitavada", "Lokmat Samachar", "Deshonnati", and "Navbhrat" and the bid was submitted online on 19/10/2010 within the extended time. According to the BVB, the Writ Petitioners had not raised a challenge that the names of the two participants were not recorded in the prebid meeting. The BVB submitted that there was separate attendance sheet for that purpose and the attendees had duly signed. Further, according to the BVB, apart from the land area of 11136 sq. meters, the N.I.T.'s land was also included to make it 13557 Sq. meters for the project of playground plus Garden. The BVB submitted that the entire area is included in Project A (playground+Garden at the periphery and left over places of the playground). According to the BVB, total area of the garden would be only 3460 Sq. meters. According to the BVB, Nagpur City's Development Control Rules are not violated to beautify the playground as the playground remains substantial user. It is grievance of the BVB that the Public Interest Litigation was allowed erroneously without specific challenges from the Writ Petitioner to the construction of the School with garden, Sports complex, playground for the School etc. proposed by the BVB.