Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) A proposal was initiated by Respondent No. 2, Bokaro Steel Plant to allot a plot in Sector -III measuring an area of 87,120 sq. feet on lease basis initially for a period of 33 years from the date of issuance of allotment order on the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement and on deposit of a sum of Rs. 1,54,15,531/ - within a period of two months of the issue of the said letter. Accepting the said proposal the petitioner arranged the amount and deposited the entire sum of Rs. 1,54,15,531/ -. Even after depositing the said amount, the respondents did not execute the formal deed of lease. The petitioner remanded the authority repeatedly to execute a formal lease deed. Instead of executing the deed of lease, the authority issued a letter dated 24/12/2010, expressing its regret to execute the formal lease deed in furtherance to the allotment made earlier. That order, as contained in letter dated 24/12/2010, was challenged before this Court in WPC No. 851 of 2011, which was quashed by this Court on 31/01/2012, for the reason that the action of the respondents in refusing to execute the lease deed was not justified and proper and the said order was passed without giving any notice and without hearing the petitioner, which has resulted in civil consequences affecting the interest of the petitioner adversely. Accordingly, said order was quashed. However, liberty was reserved with the authority to take a fresh decision in accordance with the procedure established by law. Pursuant to that order, notices dated 05 -06 -2012 and 11 -08 -2012, were issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why not the allotment order be withdrawn. Pursuant to those notices, reply was given stating therein that after accepting the proposal of the Respondent No. 2 of allotment of the land for constructing Hyper Market, the petitioner did deposit the amount and was called upon to choose amongst the possible three locations suitable for Hyper Market and allied facilities identified by the respondents. However, the authority vide its letter as contained in letter No. TA/LRA/2013/3251 dated 23 -10 -2013 (Annexure -11), informed to the petitioner that the allotment order dated 07/02/2009 stands withdrawn as setting up Hyper Market is not covered under the guideline set out by Board of SAIL as approved in its 340th Meeting and such allotment does not fall within the ambit and scope of the mandate of the terms and conditions set out by the Board. It was indicated that under Clause 3 (a) 5 of the decision taken in its 340th Meeting by the Board of Directors of SAIL, it had been decided to allot a plot with the approval of the Chief Executive of the Plants/Units as indicated below: "For other purposes such as Banks, Shops, Cinema Halls, Nursing Homes, Petrol Pumps, Expellers, Wheat Grinding etc."
(2.) In the order it was further indicated that the word "etc." had wrongly been interpreted by BSL to include Hyper Market, Malls, Multiplexes or Cultural Complexes and, thereby, any allotment for constructing Hyper Market by the SAIL/BSL with the approval of MD/CEO of the Plants/Units concerned cannot be in conformity with the SAIL Board approved terms and conditions of allotment of plots.
(3.) That order dated 23 -10 -2013, as contained in Annexure -11, has been challenged in this writ application.;