SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. P. Bharucha, G. B. Pattanaik, C.J.I. and S. S. M. Quadri, J.

Writ Petn. (Civil) No. 150 of 1997 with W. P. (C) No. 529 of 1998. D/d. 5.5.2000.

Nodia Entrepreneurs Assocn. - Petitioners

Versus

Noida and others - Respondents

For the Petitioners :- Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Adv. (A.C.).

For the Respondent in WP. 529/98 :- Dayan Krishnan, Mr. E.C. Vidya Sagar, Advocates, Tapas Ray, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Manjula Gupta, Advocate.

For the Respondents NOIDA :- Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate and Gopal Balwant Sathe, Advocate.

For the Respondent for 7 Neera Yadav :- D.D. Thakur, Sr. Advocate, Alok Krishna Agarwal, Naveen Chawla and Bharat Sangal, Advocates.

For the State of U. P. in WP 150/97 :- R.N. Trivedi, A.S.G., R.B. Misra and K. Misra, Advocates.

For the Respondent No. 8 :- Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Advocate, S.C. Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Ejaz Maqbool, Mr. B.K. Mishra and Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocates.

For the Respondent in WP 529/98 :- A. S. Pundir, Advocate.

For the C.B.I. :- Altaf Ahmed, A.S.G., A.D.N. Rao and P. Parmeswaran, Advocates.

Constitution of India, Article 32 - Writs - Allotment Of Premises - Irregularities in allotment of plots - Amicus curiae seeking certain particulars from NOIDA - NOIDA agreed to furnish the required particulars within 2 weeks - It is for the Union of India and the State of U.P. to decide whether or not the applicant should be promoted - No order of this Court which has any application in the matter.

[Paras 4 and 5]

ORDER

1. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the C.B.I., states that the investigation by the C.B.I, will take about four weeks more.

2. The learned Amicus Curiae states that the reports of the Chairman, Board of Revenue, State of U. P., do not adversely affect any of the parties before us so that copies of these reports need not be disclosed to any one of them.

3. The report of the Lokayukt (disclosed in Writ Petition (C) No. 529/98) shall continue to remain under seal.

4. The learned Amicus Curiae has asked that Noida should furnish him the following particulars:

5. In regard to the first list given to him by Noida pursuant to the order dated 16th November, 1999, Noida should furnish him with particulars of what the consequence of the show-cause notices referred to therein has been; and in regard to lists 3 and 4 relating to an industrial property and a commercial property, what has happened thereafter. Learned counsel for Noida states that these particulars shall be furnished to the learned Amicus Curiae within two weeks.

6. At the request of the learned Amicus Curiae, he shall be assisted by Mr. Nikhil Nayyar and Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Advocates, in these proceedings and the Registry shall act accordingly.

7. Copies of the reports of the Chairman, Board of Revenue, State of U. P., shall be made available to the learned counsel for the State of U. P.

I.A. No. 8/99 in W. P. (C) No. 150/97 :

8. It is for the Union of India and the State of U.P. to decide whether or not the applicant should be promoted. There is no order of this Court which has any application in the matter.

9. I.A. is disposed of accordingly.

10. List the matter on 1st September, 2000.

Order accordingly.