- (1.) Describing himself as a public spirited person and a social worker, the petitioner had instituted these proceedings in public interest seeking the following reliefs: "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to investigate the allegations made in the affidavit against respondent no.2. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to produce the records of the transactions mentioned in the petition and any other transaction found to be instigated by corruption that are discovered during the investigation and declare the same as null and void. (c) Issue a writ, order or direction the in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent no. 1 to remove the respondent No.2 from the post of MD UPSIDC. (d) Issue any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed. (e) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."
(2.) During the course of oral submissions on 8 February 2017, Sri Yatin Oza, the learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the petition, had primarily urged that the allotments made in favour of the fifth and sixth respondents by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") had been effected without any advertisement and that a huge tract of land had come to be allotted in their favour only on the basis of an application. Upon it being pointed out that the fifth and sixth respondents had not even been arrayed as party respondents, Sri Oza had sought leave to amend the writ petition which was granted on the same date. Consequently, the fifth and sixth respondents were added in the array of parties. The Court also noted the statement made on behalf of the Corporation (which was represented by counsel even on that date) that it would not execute any lease deed in their favour. Parties were thereafter directed to exchange pleadings on the writ petition. The petitioner thereafter filed an amendment application which was allowed and as a consequence of which the following additional prayers were also claimed in the writ petition. "(Ca). issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the allotment of land made in favour of the respondents no. 5 & 6. (Cb). issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to cancel the allotment made in favour of the respondent no. 5 & 6 and further direct the respondent no. 4 to investigate as to the reason behind such an allotment."
(3.) From the reliefs as claimed, it is apparent that the challenge raised was to the allotments made in favour of the fifth and sixth respondents only. We are constrained to note this on account of the fact that Sri Oza had in the course of his oral submissions contended that not just the allotments made in favour of the fifth and sixth respondents but also various other allotments had been made in violation of the policy of the Corporation and in any view of the matter in breach of the mandate of Article 14. However, no details of these alleged allotments were disclosed either in the writ petition or in the subsequent rejoinder affidavit which was filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is in the above backdrop that we now proceed to note the rival contentions.;