YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Writ Petition No. 17859 of 2016 has been preferred seeking quashing of an order dated 4 April 2016, passed by the third respondent, the Managing Director of the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.1 A further direction is sought restraining the respondents from causing any interference in the running of an engineering college established by the petitioner 1 Corporation upon Plot No. A-1, Industrial Area Rooma, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner is stated to be a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is said to have established an engineering college known as the Kanpur Institute of Technology. The said college has been established on the plot aforementioned. By the order impugned, the allotment of the plot made in favour of the petitioner on 15 July 2003, the lease deed executed in its favour by the Corporation on 1 August 2003 and the building plans sanctioned on 1 October 2003 and 15 February 2011 have come to be cancelled. The writ petition came to be instituted in order to assail the orders passed by the Corporation on various grounds and it was sought to be highlighted that the order impugned would adversely affect the functioning of the college and the large number of students who were admitted therein. On 25 April 2016, a Division Bench of the Court directed this petition to be listed along with the records of Public Interest Litigation No. 35628 of 2013. On 9 May 2016, this Court noted that a detailed counter affidavit had been filed in response to the writ petition by the Corporation. It accordingly directed the matter to be listed on 24 May 2016 to enable the parties to file their responses to the said affidavit. On 5 August 2016 by consent of learned counsel for parties, this writ petition along with the connected PIL was posted for final disposal. Parties were directed to file their counter affidavits/replies/rejoinder affidavit if any in the meanwhile. Pleadings having been completed, these petitions were thereafter taken up for final hearing. During the course of the hearing itself, both the respondents as well as the Petitioners have filed various supplementary affidavits which were, in the interest of justice, taken on record and learned counsels granted permission to advance submissions thereon. In fact the Petitioners even filed an affidavit during the course of their rejoinder submissions which too was accepted and the learned counsel permitted to refer to and rely upon the material appended thereto. These affidavits and other material shall be referred to in detail during the course of this judgment.
(2.) Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has while opening his submissions, contended that on 26 June 2003, the petitioner society made an application for allotment of land pursuant to the policy then prevailing. On the basis of the said application, the Corporation on 15 July 2003 is stated to have been allotted land admeasuring 1,01,175 square meters. The petitioner society was informed of the details with regard to the payment of reservation money as well as premium. One of the conditions which found mention in the letter of allotment was the obligation upon the petitioner society to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Kanpur Development Authority for setting up an engineering college in the industrial area. Pursuant to the said allotment, Sri Goyal submits that a lease deed came to be executed by the Corporation in favour of the petitioner on 1 August 2003. Referring to the records, Sri Goyal submits that in terms of the conditions imposed in the allotment letter requiring the petitioner to obtain a NOC from the KDA, the petitioner did apply for the grant of such a certificate. In terms of the request made in its letter dated 19 July 2003, the Corporation forwarded the same to the KDA requesting it to grant the NOC. On 29 July 2003, the KDA addressed a communication to the Regional Manager of the Corporation stating therein that in terms of the provisions of Section 17 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 19763 read with a notification dated 5 September 2001, it is apparent that in an industrial area there arises no occasion for the KDA to grant a NOC. Upon receipt of the said clarification, the Regional Manager accepted the moneys due from the Act petitioner in terms of the letter of allotment and proceeded to execute the lease in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter is stated to have submitted its building plans to the Corporation for sanction and approval on 1 October 2003. These plans were approved by the Corporation on 21 January 2009 and 25 March 2011. These sanctions, it becomes relevant to note, were also issued under the signatures of the then Regional Manager. In 2004, the petitioner applied for and obtained the necessary affiliation permissions from the All India Council for Technical Education as well as the U.P. Technical University and proceeded to commence academic activities in the college concerned. Sri Goyal submits that after more than 12 years of the execution of the lease deed and more particularly on 10 September 2015, the Corporation for the first time issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon it to explain why the lease deed executed in its favour be not cancelled. The grounds taken in the show cause notice were the failure on the part of the petitioner to obtain the NOC from the KDA as well as that the plot which was earmarked for industrial use had in fact been utilised to establish an engineering college thus putting the plot 4 AICTE to institutional use without the requisite conversion permissions having been obtained. A further show cause notice was issued on 14 September 2015. This was followed by yet another show cause notice on 12 October 2015. The subsequent notices while reiterating the earlier grounds also alleged that the petitioner along with the then Regional Manager of the Corporation had proceeded to establish the college in violation of the terms and conditions of the allotment as well as the lease deed. Upon a consideration of the responses submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed by the Corporation on 4 April 2016. The repeated reference to the then Regional Manager itself has some bearing. It is alleged that the then Regional Manager of the Corporation was none other than the husband and son of two members of the Petitioner society, who had applied for the allotment of land on 26 June 2003. It becomes relevant to note that the composition of the society on 26 June 2003 was as follows: 1. Anil Kumar Agarwal (Business man age:44 years) 2. Vipul Jain 3. Neena Verma 4. Ashok Kumar Agarwal (Brother of Sh. Anil Kumar Agarwal) 5. P.K. Jain (father of Sh. Vipul Jain) 6. Ruchi Jain (wife of Sh. Vipul Jain) 7. M.K. Bansal (Father inlaw of Sh. Vipul Jain) 8. Tej Ram Verma
(3.) The members of the society whose names find mention at items 3 and 8 are directly related to the then Regional Manager, being his wife and father respectively. The underlying and basic allegation against the Petitioner was that the allotment of the land in its favour, the sanction of plans were all part of a conspiracy and collusion between the members of the society, the then Regional Manager and other officers and employees of the Corporation. The allegation primarily appears to be that the then Regional Manager in collusion with other officers and employees of the Corporation facilitated the allocation of a large chunk of land to the petitioner society by not only abusing their official position but also with a view to confer undue benefit to the society.;