- (1.) Out of four Petitioners, three are individuals and the other one is a company through one Dr. Harsh Mahajan claiming to be its Managing Director without any supporting affidavit of competency. The whole writ petition is not filed by any of the Petitioners but with, supporting affidavit of one Naunidh Singh Arora, aged about 25 years, son of Sri M.S. Arora, B-47, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi-17 claiming himself to be pairokar of the Petitioners, however, without disclosing any connection between himself and the Petitioners. Cloud cannot be dispelled from the mind of the Court about the questionable identity of the deponent. Moreover/this Court has already held that even a power of attorney holder has no right to get an order in the nature of writ of certiorari or mandamus, in Vice Admiral, Rustam Khusro Shapoor Ji Gandhi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2010 3 ADJ 319 . The relevant part of such judgment is quoted hereunder ... In any event, a further question can arise before this Court whether a writ of Certiorari or Mandamus can be issued in favour of the Power of Attorney holder, on which there is a direct judgment of this Court being in Dr. Prabhu Nath Prasad Gupta v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2003 4 AWC 3010, which has held that the writ petition by Power of Attorney holder of the Petitioner seeking relief in the nature of writ of Certiorari for aggrieved person is not maintainable. The only exception is in respect of writ of Habeas Corpus and writ of Quo warranto. We have also verified such ratio in the Division Bench judgment of this Court to which one of us (Amitava Lala, J.) was a Member in Bharat Petroleum Corporation limited, Mumbai v. M/s Amar Auto and Ors., 2008 5 ADJ 584 , wherein a distinguishing feature arose about maintainability of suit and writ petition by the Power of Attorney holder. It was held therein that as because a plaint or written statement in any suit or memorandum of appeal in any civil appeal are supported by verification, there is a chance to examine authenticity of the person claiming to be the Power of Attorney holder. But neither such mechanism is available to the writ Petitioners nor it is based on any verification for further scrutiny. It is based on personal affidavit It has also been confirmed by further Division Bench presided by one of us (Amitava Lala, J.) in C.M.W.P. No. 44007 of 1998 alongwith other two matters (Smt Gurmeet Kaur Kwatra v. Vice-Chairman, Varanasi Development Authority Varanasi and Ors.) by extending the bar up to scope of writ of Mandamus and Prohibition alongwith writ of Certiorari. Supporting affidavit of the pairokar speaks that the averments of all the paragraphs of the writ petition are true to his personal knowledge. But in paragraph-7 of the writ petition, where the allegations are made against the Chief Minister of the State and the Chairman of the Noida authority, it appears to be based on the informations of property dealer/s even without disclosing the identity of such person/ s. No such persons are even made party Respondents. Against this background, prima facie writ petition appears to be unsustainable in nature.
(2.) For the purpose of better understanding, paragraph-7 of the writ petition is quoted below: 7. That on 1.10.2010 the Petitioner No. 1 wrote letter to the Chairman, NOIDA Authority informing him the fact that the property dealers in NOIDA had informed the Petitioner No. 1 that allotment is being done only in such cases where bribe money to the tune of Rs. 5.50 crores per farm house of 10,000 sq. mtrs was paid to Ms. Mayawati. The Petitioner No. 1 when queried the property dealer as to how a bona fide eligible applicant could be debarred from allotment, was informed that the form has been made so elaborate and with so many Annexures and with so many counter signing of Chartered Accounts and Chartered Engineers and with project report etc. and further the allotment process envisaged screening of the application forms and an interview by a selection committee only for the purpose of granting discretion to the NOIDA authority to reject the application so that only such of those applications would be cleared who pay the bribe money. The Petitioner No. 1 also brought out in his letter the fact that the application form as advised by the property dealers has been made in such a manner that firstly, very few people could be able to fill up the form because of the technicalities involved in the same and secondly, alongwith the form there were so many documents to be annexed signed by the chartered accounts or by chartered engineers which also very few people would be able to arrange and thirdly a project report for the farm house construction of the farm house, income tax returns and the balance sheets had also been asked thereby increasing the subjectivity of the plot allotment committee in selecting or rejecting an application. It was also pointed out in that letter that the farm house was being sold below the market price and hence there were ample scope for bribe to be asked in the allotment. The Petitioners accordingly vide his letter requested for criteria to be followed by the plot allotment committee in the matter of allotment of plot and as to what weightage was to be given for the interview in such allotments. These details were asked at the earliest to enable the Petitioners to properly fill up the forms. True copy of letter dated 1st October, 2010 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.
(3.) Apart from that from the facts of the case it appears to us that the Petitioners are socially well established and/or financially affluent, who inclined to get allotment of plots of land for farm house in the open green space of Noida under the scheme known as "Open-Ended Scheme For Development of Farm House on Agricultural Land-2010". The Petitioners, being signatories therein, have agreed to fulfil the terms and conditions prescribed in the application for allotment of such plots. Bottom of such application comprises clause of declaration, which is as follows: DECLARATION BY THE APPLICANT I/We hereby declare that the information, submitted with application form, are true to the best of our knowledge. Nothing has been concealed and no part of it is false. I/We further declare that we have carefully read and understood the terms and conditions for allotment of farmhouse plot and do hereby abide by the same. Each page of the terms & conditions has been signed. I/We are aware, if allotment is obtained on the basis of false information, the NOIDA may cancel our allotment at any stage and forfeit all the deposits made by me/us. However, the Petitioners want to get lands as per their choice upon payment of 10% extra premium.;