Narayan Roy, C.J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE writ petitioner, who is said to be a public spirited person, filed this P1L application raising a grievance that the State Government had decided to allot 47073 Square Metres of land on Ashram Road in favour of respondent No. 3 -M/s. DLF, which is a valuable land, at a throw -away price. According to him, the value of the land would not be less than Rs. 375 crores, but the same is being allotted in favour of respondent No. 3 for a meagre amount of Rs. 117 crores, and thus causing loss to the public exchequer to the tune of Rs. 250 crores. It is the further grievance of the writ petitioner that in the present case, no transparent procedure has at all been adopted and the State Government and also the Board of infrastructure Development and Investment Promotion (BIDI) have taken decision to make allotment of the land in favour of M/s. DLF nor any procedure of law as contemplated under Section 54 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the JDA Act') nor Rules 15 and 15 -B of the Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1974) have been applied in distribution of the land in question. In sum and substance, it is the grievance of the writ petitioner that the land in question is being settled in favour of respondent No. 3 in violation of the provisions of law, as referred to above and without any public bid or without inviting tenders from the other interested persons. A prayer, therefore, has been made to set aside the settlement of land so made in favour of respondent No. 3 and in case it has not been settled, the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) may be restrained from settling the same in favour of respondent No. 3.
(3.) MR . G.S. Bapna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner is a public spirited person and always remains vigilant so far the policy decision are taken by the State Government, particularly in regard to parting with the land of the State/JDA. Learned Counsel submitted that the land in question is being settled in favour of respondent No. 3 at a throw -away price without advertising the same attracting some more persons to offer highest bid, and thus, the action of the State authorities and the JDA appears to be in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court from time to time so far as the distribution of largesse is concerned.;