SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik, S.S.M. Quadri and R.P. Sethi, JJ.

W.P. (C) No. 150 of 1997 with W.P. (C) No. 529 of 1998. D/d. 21.1.2002.

NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association - Petitioner

Versus

NOIDA and others - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Advocate, Nikhil Nayyar, Dayan Krishnan, Amicus Curiae, E.C. Vidya Sagar, R.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate, Naveen Chawla, Ajmal Farooque, Manjula Gupta, Advocates.

For the Respondent :- ADN Rao, P. Parmeswaran, Advocates, for CBI; Navin Prakash, Vijay Gupta, Indira Jaisingh, Sr. Advocate, A.K. Agarwal, Bharat Sangal, Sangeeta Kumar, S.C. Agarwala, Sr. Advocate, Ejaz Maqbool, Ujjwal Kr. Jha, Mr. Aslam Ahmed, Ranjan Kumar Jha, Ajay K. Agrawal, Alka Agrawal, C. Siddharth, Advocates.

Allotment - Irregularities in - Cancellation of allotment - Explanation sought from Noida authorities as in some cases allotment canceled without hearing parties.

[Paras 3 and 5]

ORDER

Having heard Amicus and learned counsel for the parties for about half an hour the Court passed the following order :

2. Mr. Naveen Prakash appearing for the NOIDA Authority seeks permission to withdraw his vakalat. He is permitted to be withdrawn. Mr. Ajay K. Agrawal now enters appearance for the NOIDA.

3. It is really surprising that though more than two years have elapsed in the meantime, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has failed to submit its report to this Court. The faith of citizens on the CBI will stand eroded if this sort of callous attitude is shown by the CBI concerning a matter where the Apex Court of the country is in sessin of the matter and has been extending time for the CBI to file its report aso that appropriate action/direction could be given. The learned counsel appearing of the CBI, however, undertakes that the report in question will be filed within four weeks from today.

4. The State of U.P. is directed to file an affidavit indicating what final action, if any, has been taken on the basis of three reports which have gone into the alleged irregularities in the matter of allotment of land in NOIDA.

5. In view of the grievances of several allottees whose land had already been cancelled without giving them a hearing while others were given a hearing before cancellation, it would be appropriate to call upon the NOIDA Authorities to indicate why there has been discrimination and as to whether the procedure required to be followed for cancellation has been duly followed in all cases or not. The affidavit in question may be filed within four weeks from today.

6. Copy of Affidavits be served on all the repondents.

7. The learned counsel assisting the learned Amicus Curiae is permitted to sit jointly with the counsel appearing for NOIDA Authority and, on examining the necessary papers, will inform the Amicus Curiae as to what are the details of the two lists already submitted and any action has been taken or any further action is required to be taken in that respect. The learned Amicus will file a status report. Put up this matter after two months for a direction as to the date of hearing of the matter.

Order accordingly.