- (1.) THE petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act. THE petitioner society is totally N. R. I, venture as stated in the writ petition. Dr. Purshottam Lal, the President of the petitioner society is an awardee of Padma Bhushan and is also conferred with the prestigious Dr. B. C. Roy Award. THE petitioner society is the only one of its kind in the country which-has as many as five Padmashree awardees. THE petitioner society is a pioneer in establishing the educational institutions, hospitals, medical colleges and dental colleges and has already established six Heart Centers and one Super Specialty Hospital for hip joint and. knee joint replacement and organ transplantation includeing kidney transplant.
(2.) ON 14th June, 2002 the petitioner made an application before the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'noida') requesting for allotment of 25 acres of land within the NOIDA area for setting up medical college and dental college by the Metro Group of Hospitals. Alongwith the application petitioner society also submitted project report of the proposed medical college. ON the receipt of the proposal from the petitioner society, NOIDA by its communication dated 3rd July, 2002 asked the petitioner to submit their project report for the proposed medical college for which 25 acres of land was sought to be allotted. ON 3rd July, 2004 NOIDA informed the petitioner society that the land allotment committee has taken decision that the petitioner society must apply for allotment in the prescribed manner and also deposit processing fee so that the matter may be decided on merits. This reply dated 3rd February, 2004 was issued in response to the petitioner's application dated 19th November, 2003 and the same was communicated to the NOIDA by the State Government alongwith covering letter dated 24th November, 2003. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by the respondents as stated above, the petitioner deposited processing fee of Rs. 5, 000/- w'cte letter dated 9th February, 2004. Petitioner again by its letter dated 8th June, 2004 requested the respondents that the land lying vacant situated in Sector No. 124 and 125 may be allotted to the petitioner society, as has been done by the Authority in the past for the construction of medical college in favour of Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad (an entity of Maharaji Educational Trust, Chennai) on lease basis for 90 years. This application of the petitioner society was sent on 8th June, 2004. The NOIDA in reply to the petitioner's application dated 8th June, 2004 sent commu nication dated 28th June, 2004 to the petitioner stating therein that the land situ ated in Sector No. 124 is for commercial use, therefore cannot be allotted to the petitioner and the land to the tune of 50 acres is not available in Sector 125, therefore, if the petitioner requires, it may apply for allotment of land-in any other developing sector in NOIDA alongwith the requisite processing fee. Besides mak ing application to the NOIDA, as already stated, petitioner also approached the State Government for the allotment of land in favour of the petitioner-society for establishment of Metro Hospital and Heart Institute in view of policy decision taken by the State Government to attract investment from the private sector in the matter of development of infrastructure for educational purpose. The petitioners requested before the State Government to allot the land in favour of the petitioner for establishment of Metro Hospital and Heart Institute. Petitioner's request before the State Government received prompt attention and the NOIDA was sent a communication dated 11th October, 2004 in the name of Ms. Radha Chauhan, Additional Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA, Mukhya Prashashnik Bhawan, Sectors, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar referring to its earlier communication dated 4th October, 2004 stating therein that every pos sible assistance is assured to the petitioner in the matter of establishment of Metro Hospital and Heart Institute. NOIDA published advertisement dated 19th January, 2005 proposing allotment of land under the "open Ended Scheme" for institutional purposes only.
(3.) THE petitioner obtained an application form and submitted the same on 28th February, 2005 requesting for allotment of 50 acres of land to the petitioner society under the "open Ended Scheme". Petitioner in its application dated 28th February, 1 2005 has submitted that the requisite registration fee i. e. 10% of the 75% of total lease amount at the rate of 1500/- persq. meter as per the revised rates applicable until end of financial year w. e. f. 1st April, upto 31st March would be deposited within a week and accordingly the petitioner made cash deposit to the tune of Rs. 2, 27, 70, 000/- vide order dated 7th March, 2005 alongwith covering application dated 7th March, 2005. THE processing fee of Rs. 6000/- was also deposited alongwith cash deposit. At this stage it is submitted by the petitioner that the entire formalities have been completed by the petitioner, i. e. the payment of processing fee as well as requisite registration amount which was duly ac cepted by the NOIDA and the petitioner's matter was ripe up to be presented for approval before the respondent No. 4, namely, Chairman, U. P. Vikas Parishad, Lucknow and consequently grant of 50 acres of land for allotment was made in favour of the petitioner in Sector No. 132. It is also apparent from the minutes of 125th Board Meeting held on 15th April, 2005 copy whereof is annexed with writ petition. Since the petitioner was the only applicant when the matter was consid ered by the NOIDAin its 125th Board Meeting which was held on 15th April, 2005, Board has recommended the petitioner's case for allotment of land. THE aforesaid land was allotted to the petitioner on prevailing rate of Rs. 1, 500/- per sq. meter under the "open Ended Scheme". Petitioner, as already stated, deposited pro cessing fee of Rs. 6, 000/- and Rs. 2, 27, 70, 000/- as registration fee with the re spondent Authority. Petitioner also requested the State Government to allot the land in favour of the petitioner under the Open Ended Scheme' and total area for which the petitioner applied for is 50 acres. Petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was the sole applicant pursuant to the advertisement dated 19th Janu ary, 2005 and despite petitioner has deposited the requisite fee and completed all the formalities by the petitioner, the land as stated above measuring 50 acres has not been allotted to the petitioner instead respondents issued fresh advertise ment dated 16th September, 2005. THE petitioner was served with the order of cancellation dated 20thseptember, 2005 after the respondents have already ad vertised inviting fresh bids. Petitioners' application for allotment was cancelled by the order dated 20th September, 2005 without any reason whatsoever. In the advertisement dated 16th September, 2005 respondents have advertised land measuring 25 acres plus 5 acres respectively specifically for allotment for the purposes of construction of medical college and dental college. On 16th Septem ber, 2005, the petitioner had no knowledge of the rejection of its application dated 28th February, 2005 and the order of rejection dated 20th September, 2005 was served upon the petitioner after fresh publication of the advertisement which was published and the date of cancellation. That the petitioner again applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 16th September, 2005 that the allotment of land for establishing medical and dental college. On the date of advertisement the peti tioner was informed that since the said advertisement is related to Medical and Dental College exclusively, the petitioner could very well withdraw the application dated 28th February, 2005 made by the petitioner pursuant to the first application dated 19th January, 2005 and the petitioner was kept in dark regarding cancella tion of the said application dated 28th February, 2005. That the petitioner had no choice but to apply again pursuant to the advertisement dated 16th September, 2005. THE petitioner applied again on 14th October, 2005 after completing all the formalities including of payment of processing fee of Rs. 10, 000/- and registration fee of Rs. 6, 00, 00, 000/- (rupees six crores ). THE petitioner has appended alongwith application dated 14th October, 2005 a certificate dated 8th October, 2005 issued by the Punjab National Bank, Sagar Galaxy Mayur Vihar, Phase-2, Delhi ad dressed to the NOIDA certifying that the Bank has in principle agreed to finance the project of Rs. 115 crores, planned by the petitioner's society of Metro Group for Education and Medical Research at NOIDA and petitioner has also arranged finance from various other sources including its relatives which shows that the petitioner has produced sufficient material to show that the petitioner is capable to establish Medical and Dental College and only the petitioner has been apply ing for allotment of the land since 2002. On 16th March, 2006 petitioner surprised to receive communication from NOFDA that the scheme of allotment of land has been withdrawn by the NOIDA. Aggrieved by the aforesaid withdrawal order dated 16th March, 2006 petitioner filed a writ petition No. 17238 of 2006 before this Court in which interim order dated 14th April, 2006 restraining the allotment to any other person was passed and this order was extended from time to time. THE respondents filed a counter affidavit in which they have took the stand that the NOIDA did not possess the land for allotment for medical and dental college which fact has been denied by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit, wherein the petitioner has attached an advertisement issued on 18th May, 2006 which clearly denies the facts stated in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition. In the aforesaid advertisement the land was meant for allotment for medical and dental college. THE aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 7th Au gust, 2006 wherein this Court has been pleased to dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the petitioner to file a fresh and comprehensive representa tion alongwith certified copy of the order and the copy of writ petition alongwith annexures before the competent authority who shall decide the same within twelve weeks of the receipt of the representation in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in the judgment. THE Court further directed that till decision of the representation, the respondents will not give effect to the order dated 16th March, 2006 and further keep in reserve 30 acres of land proposed for allotment to the petitioner which shall be subject to the final decision to be taken by NOIDA on the petitioner's representation. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction passed by this Court, petitioner sub mitted representation dated 23rd August, 2006 before the NOIDA Authority against the arbitrary withdrawal of the scheme by the order dated 16th March, 2006 which has been decided by the NOIDA Authority by its order dated 15th November, 2006. The petitioner challenges the aforesaid order dated 15th November, 2006 on various grounds. . 7. The respondents have not denied the events narrated above by the peti tioner by filing counter affidavit and even after exchange of several supplementary affidavits. However, they have stated that the earliest application filed by the peti tioner dated 14th June, 2002 has not been processed because it was not on the prescribed format and further the petitioner wanted the allotment in the Sectors 124 and 125. It was informed to the petitioner that the land in Sector 124 is for commercial purposes. 8. It would hot be out of place to mention here that on 12th January, 2007 when learned Advocate General appearing for the NOIDA and State has made a statement when this writ petition was argued, which is recorded in the order dated 12th January, 2007 passed by this Court that the NOIDA has to develop SEZ area wherein certain land is being reserved for medical college. It is also stated that in case the petitioner files an application for allotment of the land for establishing medical college, it shall be considered Learned Advocate General further submitted that this scheme of SEZ will commence within three months' and this Court directed the writ petition to come up for admission/hearing in the month of May 2007 and left it open for the petitioner to apply for allotment in the area pointed out by learned Advocate General with a further direction that in case such an application is filed by petitioners, the Respondent-NOIDA shall consider the said allotment in favour of the petitioner. 9. The petitioner filed an affidavit sworn on 12th January, 2007 wherein he has narrated that the copies of the award given to Dr. Purshottam Lal have been annexed and further the statement on behalf of respondents have been denied by annexing the material on record that under village Basai which is within the jurisdiction of the NOIDA authority, the land development project is going on and the petitioner can suitably be allotted the land for which the petitioner is approaching the respondents authority since 2005 and the respondents authority on one or the other pretext denying the allotment of land to the petitioner. The petitioner has further filed a supplementary affidavit sworn on 21st February, 2008 stating therein that pursuant to the order dated 12th January, 2007 passed by this Court and in view of the statement made by learned Advocate General appearing for the NOIDA "and State, referred to above the petitioner had filed a detailed representation which is pending before the NOIDA and the NOIDA has not passed any order thereon despite the order dated 12th January, 2007 passed by this Court. The petitioner has also annexed a news item published in "dainik Jagaran" dated 19th April, 2006, wherein a news item has been published that the land which was ear marked for medical city, has been sold by the NOIDA in the name of I. T. (Informa tion Technology ). The petitioner has also annexed the minutes of 147th Board meeting of the NOIDA, wherein item No. 34 clearly demonstrates that the NOIDA Board has approved plan for establishment of the medical city in Sector 151 in an area of 75 acres. In this view of the matter, according to the petitioner the state ment of NOIDA that the scheme has now been withdrawn or that the land which can be allotted to the petitioner is not available is totally in corrrect. The petitioner has further filed an affidavit duly sworn on 19th March, 2008, wherein it has been stated that non allotment of the land to the petitioner was not for the reasons suggested in the impugned order, therefore the statement made during the course of the argument that now no land is available which can be allotted to the peti tioner cannot be believed and deserves to be rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the supplementary affidavit dated 21st February, 2008 wherein the minutes of 147th Board meeting of NOIDA has been annexed, it is clearly demonstrated that Sector 151 has been earmarked for development of medical city. The records were also summoned by this Court and the statements made in the affidavits and supplementary affidavit filed in support of this writ peti tion are corroborated. Now in view of the aforesaid facts learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the resolution of the Board in its 125th meeting dated 15th April, 2005 as well as the minutes of 147th meeting of the Board clearly demonstrate that the statement on behalf of the NOIDA in the im pugned order and otherwise that they have no land or that the scheme for estab lishment of the medical city wherein the medical and dental college has to be established, has been withdrawn should not be accepted and deserves to be rejected. 10. We find force in submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner as would be clear from the narration of the facts that argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be accepted for reasons stated above and narrated here in after. 11. The close chain of the event starting from 19th July, 2005 that the scheme was advertised by the NOIDA under the "open Ended Scheme" that the area in the scheme and the letter dated 28th March, 2005 received by the petitioner from the NOIDA directing the petitioner to deposit the balance of the processing fee so that the formalities with regard to allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner can be completed with and file should be forwarded for further action in respect of the process of allotment of the land followed by 125th meeting of the Board dated 15th April, 2005. The further advertisement dated 16th September, 2005 by the NOIDA inviting application for allotment of land for medical and dental college without mentioning any particular sector and demanding rupees six crores. The petitioner has responded even to this advertisement and the offer given by the NOIDA and deposited the necessary money amounting to six crores of rupees, but all of sudden on 16th March, 2006, the petitioner received letter from the NOIDA that the scheme for medical and dental college has now been withdrawn due to some administrative reason. From the period 16th September, 2005 to 16th March, 2006, there was no correspondence and the petitioner was in legiti mate expectation and belief that he will be getting an order for allotment of the land as there was no applicant except petitioner. The petitioner has completed all formalities including deposit of money to the tune of crores of Rupees coupled with fact that the date of advertisement for allotment of land for the Medical and Dental College is earlier than rejection of the petitioner's application. The peti tioner filed the present writ petition wherein on 12th January, 2007 the statement and undertaking given by learned Advocate General appearing for NOIDA and-State has been recorded by this Court that the scheme of allotment of land for medical and dental college as notified by NOIDA now in its 147th Board meeting dated 10th December, 2007 shall be made. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that does it not lie in the mouth of the NOIDA to say that the scheme has now been withdrawn or that there is no land which can be allotted to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision of the respondent-NOIDA not to act contrary than in accordance with the Board resolution dated 15th April, 2005 which has been ratified by 147th Board meeting. It has now been intimated by the resolution of the 147th Board meeting, which clearly demon strates that the action of the respondents and the NOIDA are all vitiated by bad faith, misdirection in law and prompted by irrelevant considerations as well as by factors alien to the process of discharging the duties under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Areas Development Act, 1973 (In short 'the Act' ). Apart from the decision being arbitrary, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the scope of exercise of power under the provision of Section 6 of the Act, does not permit the respondents-NOIDA to say to the petitioner that either the scheme itself has been withdrawn or that the land is not available, which can be allotted to the petitioner, though from the facts stated in the affidavits and the supplementary affidavit, it is abundantly clear that the scheme does exists and the land is also available at least in Sector 151. Under the orders of this Court when earlier writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2006, which has been disposed of with the direction to the respondents-NOIDA to decide the petitioner's representation clearly directing that an area of 30 acres of land shall be kept reserved, which shall be subject of final decision that might be passed on the representation of the petitioner. It is submitted and incur opinion rightly that in view of the order of this Court dated 12. 1. 2007 the contention of the NOIDA that there is no land available or that the scheme has been withdrawn, cannot be accepted. As already stated, the petitioner has filed a representation pursuant to the direction issued by this Court the decision of the respondent-NOIDA suffers from arbitrariness based on irrelevant considerations which are contrary to records and the relevant considerations and facts have not been considered, therefore it cannot said to be an order pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the writ petition earlier filed by the petitioner. The contention of respondents-NOIDA's that they are not under any obligation, particularly when they have asked the petitioner to get refund of the money deposited by him with regard to the allot ment of land to the petitioner is contrary to law as laid down by the Apex Court starting from the year 1952 as has been held in the case of Gordhandas Bhanji v. Commissioner of Police, 1952 SCR 139 : AIR 1952 SC 16; Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (1987) 2 SCC 295 and Haji T. M. Hassan Rawtherv. Kerala Financial Corporation, 1988 (1) SCC 166. In fact, the petitioner has not withdrawn any money and on the contrary the petitioner is saddled with liability of paying interest to the Bank to the tune of several crores for the money deposited by petitioner with NOIDA, which the petitioner has deposited after borrowing it from the Bank. 12. It is further stated that the establishment of institutions of higher learning and hospitals which involve investment of expertise and sound financial position are special features and applicants intending to set up such institutions consti tute special and distinct classes just as the hotel industry in Sachidanand Pandey's case (supra ). It is therefore submitted that the action of the respondents that the petitioner's representation dated 14th June, 2002 and the communication of the State Government dated 11 th October, 2004 alongwith the decision taken by the NOIDA in its 125th meeting of the Board deciding to grant 50 acres of land to the petitioner society from the land available in Sector 132 are all processes which fall pre-eminently in the class of special circumstances or cases endorsed in Sachchidanand Pandey's case (supra ). It is pertinent to mention here as submit ted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the decision contained, in 125th meeting of the Board constitute final and conclusive decision of the respondent-NOIDA, whicti the Board has not recalled or cancelled the said decision as hav ing been wrongly taken by the NOIDA. Nothing has been shown by NOIDA that said decision was impaired in any manner or that the petitioner was found ineli gible to receive the benefit of said decision. The inaction on the part of NOIDA to process and to give effect to the said decision can be explained only by reason of play of extraneous considerations. Not acting in pursuance of a solemn decision taken is thus arbitrary and capricious. In the absence of any explanation available from the records as to reasons for the non-implementation of the said decision, it is open to the Court to call upon NOIDA to honour such solemn decision. 13. The contention of petitioner's Counsel is that if NOIDA proceeded to test its own resolution for any apparent reason by resorting to public invitations, it can be safely stated that the decision to act in terms of the Board resolution was only deferred to await the outcome of the advertisement dated 19th January, 2005. Even assuming that after such a decision the NOIDA was inclined to follow the process of inviting applications through public offers, the application made by petitioner in response to the advertisement dated 19th January, 2005 proposing allotment of land under the "open Ended Scheme" for institutional purposes should have been considered, the NOIDA has not explained as to why the petitioner's application/representation has not been treated as an application for institutional purposes, particularly when neither the statute nor the regulations make any distinction between a medical college and other educational institutions. The facts as asserted in the petition show that the land available under the advertise ment dated 19th. January, 2005 were dealt with and disposed of on considerations other than reason and justice. The deferred communication of the acceptance contained in Board resolution dated 16th April, 2005 should have been issued. The advertisement dated 16th September, 2005 based on the scheme for allot ment of land to medical and dental college is a solemn commitment to act in terms thereof. Neither the said advertisement nor the scheme referred to any particular area or sector kept apart for such allotment. The contention of NOIDA that 30 acres of land at one place could not be acquired, is a false statement which is belied by the details regarding the extent of land that was available in Sector 142 because large chunks of land were allotted to several persons both before and after 16th March, 2006. It is evident that NOIDA has virtually used its statutory authority to trade with land and indulge in allotments, prompted by preferences other than the avowed purposes of the Act and fairness and non-discrimination. It is further contended that the resolution passed by the Board on 15th April, 2005 and the subsequent conduct of receiving application from the petitioner all constitute not only implied contract but also promises, the perfor mance of which cannot be excused or avoided on any reasonable ground. It is well-settled that the conduct of such public authority dealing with public proper ties both during the process of decision to execute a contract and after the ex ecution of the contract can be judicially reviewed. In support of his contention learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of Apex Court in the case of Noble Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 2006 (10) SCC 236. Petitioner's Counsel further submitted that petitioner's application is for a public purpose, designed to meet the educational and health needs of the community. The NOIDA chose to ask for and receive the application from the petitioner and every mode of invitation asking for applications from the concerned and interested parties is an invitation to be taken seriously by both the parties having regard to the implica tions of acting in furtherance of the invitation. On the strength of invitation ex tended on more than one occasion the petitioner has arranged to provide the requisite finances. The petitioner has incurred liability in this regard. It has placed reliance on the invitations and has suffered detriment. In such and similar circum stances, the principles of estoppel and legitimate expectations have been held to be available as grounds for judicial review and issuance of appropriate writs or directions. Such inferences about mala fides can be drawn from the proved facts. In support of his contention learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a deci sion of Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Ramjilal, 1970 (3) SCC 602. 14. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that if the respondents authority had not avoided acting bona fide and pursued the public interest oriented action under the advertisements, the authority would have allot ted land to the petitioner without the excuses cooked up in the impugned communication. 15. The contention of petitioner's Counsel is that despite number of opportu nities the NOIDA has not filed any reply. The reasoning in the impugned order is the same as the stand taken by NOIDA. The point however is whether the com munications dated 20th September, 2005 and 16th March, 2006 which are con tinuous proceedings of NOIDA ultimately culminating in the order dated 15th No vember, 2006, can at all be justified as legitimate exercise of power under the 1976 Act and the 1991 Regulations framed by NOIDA, because neither of above said communications contain reasons which are either shown to be borne out of the records or have been demonstrated to be relevant grounds for not acting in pursuance of their internally taken finally binding decisions. The reasons cited by NOIDA being non-existent, the only conclusion to be drawn will be that NOIDA has conducted its affairs in a manner not sanctioned by law. It is further submit ted that petitioner had incurred heavy liability by way of interest to the tune of Rs. 2, 53, 20, 027/- on amount of rupees six crores remitted to NOIDA. In the absence of any decision - taken on relevant and existing grounds and in the absence of communication of such reasons and grounds, the Court will irresistibly draw the conclusion that NOIDA has pursued illegitimate and improper considerations, while ostensibly-faking reasons. The stand taken by NOIDA that there is no con tract and promise etc. are stands conjured only to defeat the ends of justice. Such unconsciousable stands are alien to good and clean governance. The peti tioner submits that the wrong committed by NOIDA are liable to be corrected by this Court on well-settled principles of judicial review. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Neelima Singh v. State of Haryana, 1986 (4) SCC 268, inviting attention of the Court that petitioner alone is diligently prosecuting the matter with NOIDA and no other party is inter ested. 16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon certain deci sion, such as G. B. Mahajan and others v. Jalgaon Municipal Council, 1991 (3) SCC 91; Lucknowdevelopmentauthority v. M. K. Gupta, 1993 (3) SCC 499; Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. v.-State of U. P. and others, 1990 Supp. (1) SCR 625; Tata Cellularv. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Noble Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa and another, (2006) 10scc236; Mohindrav. Municipal Board, Saharanpur, (1969) 1 SGC 56; Harvela Investments Ltd. v. Royal Trust Co. of Canada (Cl) Ltd. and others, (1985)1 All ER 25; Blackpool and Fyide Aero Club Ltd. v. 0 Blackpool Borough Council, (1990) 3 All ER 25; Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, (1952) SCR 135; Purxomoma Ramanata Quenin v. Makan Kalyan Tandel and others, (1974) 2 SCC 169 and Comptroller and Auditor Gen eral of India v. K. S. Jagannathan and another, (1986) 2 SCC 679. 17. It is submitted by learned Additional Advocate General appearing on be half of State and NOIDA that though the NOIDA had offered the scheme for allot ment of land for establishing the medical city known as medical and dental col lege, the scheme was advertised and the process of scheme was available with the petitioner but since the process does not start due to shortage of land it was proposed to allot 25 acres of land for medical college and 5 acres for dental college for the purposes, therefore earlier application made by the petitioner pur suant to the aforesaid advertisement has no meaning. He further submitted that advertisement issued on 26th September, 2005, at the most, constitute an invita tion or an offer and nothing beyond it. Thus any response to the aforesaid adver tisement is an offer which unless accepted by the respondents, cannot be imple mented and since the NOIDA has not accepted the offer of the petitioner and has decided not to proceed with the scheme, therefore petitioner has no right which can be enforced by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India. 18. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the registration and the demand by NOIDA to deposit the processing fee and the money to the tune of rupees six crores by the petitioner, which the petitioner has deposited after bor owing the same from the Bank on interest, was all subject to approval and ac ceptance by the NOIDA and the conduct of the respondents NOIDA in demanding all those fee cannot constitute acceptance of the offer of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for respondent has submitted that since no allotment letter has been issued and it should not be issued as the scheme itself has been withdrawn, the petitioner at the most is least entitled to get refund of his money that he has deposited with the NOIDA and the petitioner has since accepted the refund of his money, therefore at least the NOIDA cannot be blamed for not allotting the land to the petitioner. It is then submitted that the authority is not in a position, nor it is humanly possible to allot land in other scheme, at this stage. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's application was sole applica tion and there was no other application, therefore this statement and argument raised by the respondents cannot be accepted. 19. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that all questions raised by petitioner are wholly misconceived and relied upon a decision in the case of Nitaibagv. State of West Bengal, (2000) 8 SCC 262, wherein in para 20 the Apex Court has held as under: 1 "the Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and policy decision which may be necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances. The Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 20. Learned Counsel for the respondents further relied upon the scope of judicial review in the case of State of Orissa and others v. Gopinath Dash and others, (2005) 13 SCC 495, wherein the Apex Court in para 6 has held as under: "the correctness of the reasons which prompted the Government in deci sion-making taking one course of action instead of another is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the Court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation. " 21. Learned Counsel for the respondents further relied upon a decision in the case of Chairman and MD, BPL Ltd. v. S. P. Gururaja and others, (2003) 8 SCC 567, wherein the Apex Court in para 20 has held as under: "there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that normally allotment of such industrial plots should be done in terms of Regulation 7 aforementioned. But the same by itself did not preclude the authorities of the Board and the State having regard to the fact situation obtaining herein to take recourse to Regu lation 13. Once the Court finds that the power exercised by the statutory authorities can be traced to a provision of a statute, unless and until violation of mandatory provisions thereof is found out and/or it is held that a decision is taken for an unauthorized or illegal purpose, the Court will not ordinarily inter fere either with the policy decision or any decision taken by the executive authorities pursuant to or in furtherance thereof. " 22. Learned Counsel for the respondents further relied upon a decision in the case of Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal and others, (2007) 8 SCC 418, wherein the Apex Court in para 68 has held as under: "the Court must always remember that 'legislation is directed to practi cal problems, that the economic mechanism is highly sensitive and com plex, that many problems are singular and contingent, that laws are not ab stract propositions and do not relate to abstract units and are not to be measured by abstract symmetry', "that exact wisdom and nice adaption of remedy are not always possible' and that' judgment 2 is largely a prophecy based on meagre and uninterrupted experience'. Every legislation particu larly in economic matters is essentially empiric and it is based on experi mentation or what one may call trial and error method and therefore it cannot provide for all possible situations or anticipate all possible abuses, there may be crudities and inequities in complicated experimental economic legislation but on that account alone it cannot be struck down as invalid. " 23. Learned Counsel for the respondents further relied upon a decision in the case of Union of India and others v. Indian Godfrey Philips India Ltd. , AIR 1986 SC 806, wherein the Apex Court in para 9 has held as under: "now the doctrine of promissory estoppel as well-established in the ad ministrative law of India. It represents a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice and, though commonly named promissory estoppel, it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. The basis of this doctrine is the interposition of enquiry which has always, true to its form, stepped in to mitigate the rigour of strict law. This doctrine, though of ancient vintage, was rescued from obscurity by the decision of Mr. Justice Denning as he then was, in his celebrated judgment in Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. , (1956) 1 All ER 256. The true principle of promissory es toppel is that where one party has by his word or conduct made to the other to clear and unequivocal promise or representation which is. intended to cre ate legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise or representation is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise or representation would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties. It has often been said in England that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot itself be the basis of an action : it can only be a shield and not a sword : but the law in India has gone far ahead of the narrow position adopted in England and as in Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1979) 2 SCR 641 : (Al R 1979 SC 621), it is now well-settled that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not limited in its application only to defence but it can also found a cause of action, the decision of this Court in Motilal Sugar Mills case (supra) contains an exhaustive discussion of the doctrine of prom issory estoppel and we find ourselves wholly in agreement with the various parameters of this doctrine outlined in that decision. " 24. The contention advanced on behalf of the respondents cannot be ac cepted in view of the fact that decisions of the allotment of land for medical and dental college started in year 2002 and the application/representation of the peti tioner still exists with the Board and the NOIDA Board in its 147th meeting en dorsed the admission of allotment of the land for establishment of the medical city which except for change of the venue now to Sector 151 remains the same as it was in the year 2005. The petitioner's argument of legitimate expectations, therefore has to be accepted, coupled with the fact that the NOIDA has estab lished under the provisions of U. P. State Industrial Development Act, 1976 is 3 under the obligation as held by series of decisions of Apex Court mentioned above to proceed with the allotment of the land in accordance with the policy of the NOIDA and the State Government, unless the policy of the State Government or NOIDA has been altered or changed. There is no material on record that the policy of the State Government or NOIDA has either been altered or changed, except that the respondents have come up with the case that the scheme has been withdrawn. 25. From the facts narrated above, it is abundantly clear that the statement of the NOIDA that the scheme has been withdrawn, cannot be established in view of 125th and 147th meeting of the Board, therefore denial of allotment of the land to the petitioner is nothing but arbitrary based on irrelevant consideration. , Even ac cording to the statement made by learned Advocate General before this Court which is recorded in the order dated 12th January, 2007, the respondents ought to have decided the petitioner's representation/application, but the respondents have not passed any order whatsoever despite the undertaking given by learned Advocate General. This in itself is unsatisfactory conduct on the part of the NOIDA and we arrive at the conclusion that the order has been passed on irrelevant consideration. It is further clear that the scheme itself exists as is ratified by 147th Board meeting of the NOIDA except that the venue is changed. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 15th November, 2006 deserves to be quashed. 26. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned order dated 15th November, 2006 (Annexure-25 to the writ petition) is quashed. The respondents and the NOIDA is directed to allot the land to the petitioner in Sector 151 or in any other sector as has been undertaken by learned Advocate General before this Court, which has been recorded in the order dated 12th January, 2007. The petitioner is directed to comply with all other formalities which are necessary/required to be performed by the petitioner for allotment of land for medical and dental college pursuant to the Board's 125th and 147th Meeting, it is further directed that NOIDA should not charge the current rate of land for allotment to the petitioner and should adjust the amount already depos ited with the NOIDA which has not been withdrawn by the petitioner after giving due consideration to the amount of interest paid by the petitioner to the Bank amounting to Rs. 2, 53, 20, 027/- and/or such further amount which the petitioner is likely to pay towards the interest to the Bank. The respondents are directed to comply with the directions issued in this judgment within three months of produc tion of the certified copy of this judgment before respondents. .;