SAI ADITYA ASSETS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADHESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows:

(2.) The petitioner before this Court is the successful tenderer in a tender that was notified in the year 2012 for development of plots of a land in MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam. The tender was floated by the 2nd respondent. This tender was floated for the development of the site under the Public Private Participation Mode (P.P.P. Mode). The site measures Ac.0-91 cents in MVP Colony / ChinnaWalatair. For various reasons the allotment of the site and the physical development of the same was delayed and ultimately the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.41619 of 2017 followed by W.P.No.5543 of 2018 challenging the decision taken by the State. An interim order was granted by the Court in W.P.No.5543 of 2018 restraining the State and others from allotting the site of Ac.0-91 cents in Sy.No.21/1P of MVP Colony to the third parties. Thereafter the authorities entered into a dialogue and according to the petitioner an alternative site measuring Ac.1-95 cents in Sy.No.350/2 of Madhurawada village was agreed to be allotted to the petitioner on the condition that he withdraws the Writ Petition and accepts the site. The petitioner submits that consequent on the representations made by the respondents, they have withdrawn the Writ Petition and after the Writ Petition was withdrawn the petitioner was allotted only Ac.0-91 cents in Madhurawada instead of entire Ac.1-95 cents. This is the sum and substance of the dispute. According to the petitioner the rule of promissory estoppel clearly applies and that the Writ Petition was withdrawn on the representation made that he would be allotted alternative site of Ac.1-95 cents in Sy.No.350/2 of Madhurawada in lieu of Ac.0-91 cents in Sy.No.21/1P of ChinnaWaltair/ MVP Colony (Land in Sy.No.21/P of ChinnaWaltair / MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam is hereinafter called the "Original" site and the land in Sy.No.350/2 of Madhurawada is called the "alternative" site).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri C. Raghu argues that this is clear case of promissory estoppel. According to him a representation was made by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, pursuant to which the petitioner has changed his position / stand and withdrew the Writ Petition. After the Writ Petition was withdrawn, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have gone back on their promise. He points out that from a reading of the correspondence at more than one place the State had agreed that the alternative land for Ac.1-95 cents in Madhurawada is to be allotted since the petitioner was surrendering the original land of Ac.0-91 cents in ChinnaWaltair / MVP Colony. He draws the attention of this Court to the Memo dated 15.05.2018 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government, wherein the petitioner was directed to withdraw the Writ Petition and notes that the Vice Chairman of the 3rdrespondent-Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority has identified an alternative land measuring Ac.1-95 cents for allotment. He also draws the attention of this Court to the Memo dated 07.05.2018 wherein in paragraphs 4 and 5 this proposal has been noted and reiterated. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Government gave its "in principle" approval in paragraph 4 of this Memo dated 07.05.2018 for giving Ac.1-95 cents of land situated in Sy.No.350/2 of Madhurawada village as alternative land for the Ac.0-90 cents in ChinnaWaltair (original site). In paragraph 5 learned counsel points out that they were directed to take necessary steps to withdraw the case and submit a detailed proposal to the State for processing the same. Learned counsel argues that based on these representations of the State / the respondents, the petitioner withdrew the case. Unfortunately, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not given the entire Ac.1-95 cents in Madhurawada and it was only allotted Ac.0-91 cents. This is the order that is being questioned.