SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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

Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 150 of 1997 with 529 of 1998. D/d. 19.1.2001.

Noida Entrepreneurs Assocn. - Petitioner

Versus

Noida and others - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Advocate (AC), Nikhil Nayyar and Dayan Krishnan, Advocates (AC), P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate and E.C, Vidyasagar, Advocates.

For the C.B.I. :- K.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Manjula Gupta, Advocate in W.P. No. 529/98; Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate and Gopal Balwant Sathe, Advocate, for Respondents; Dr. A.N. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Alok Krishna Agarwal, Bharat Sangal and Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Advocates, for Respondent No. 7. S.C. Agarwala, Sr. Advocate, Ejaz Maqbool and B.K. Mishra, Advocates, for Respondent No, 8; Ajay K. Agrawal and Mrs. Alka Agrawal, Advocates, for State of U.P. Altaf Ahmed, A.S.G., A.D.N. Rao and P. Parmeshwaran, Advocates.

Constitution of India, Article 32 - Public Interest Litigation - Allotment of Premises - Cancellation of allotments in a discriminate manner - Noida directed to explain on affidavit why it has followed a different procedure in respect of some of allottees.

[Paras 4 and 5]

ORDER

I. A. No. 9/2000 in W.P. (C) No. 150/97 is dismissed.

2. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel.

3. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the C.B.I., states that the C.B.I. report, on completion of investigations, shall be filed within twelve weeks from today.

4. In regard to the action taken by the State of U.P. on the various reports that we shall mention, learned counsel appearing for the State of U.P. states that he has no instructions. We find it strange, having regard to the on-going proceedings, that he should not have been given instructions and that he did not seek them. We direct the State of U.P. to state, on affidavit, the present position in respect of :

(1) the departmental enquiry against the 7th respondent,

(2) the action taken or proposed to be taken on the reports of the Chairman of the Board of Revenue,

(3) its stand on the report of the Lok Ayukta and the action, if any, taken pursuant thereto.

(4) the action taken on the report of Justice Murtaza Hussain.

The affidavit shall be filed by the Secretary of the relevant department of the State within eight weeks from today.

5. NOIDA is directed to explain, on affidavit, the procedure it has followed in respect of the cancellation of allotments and why it appears to have followed a different procedure in respect of some allottees. This affidavit shall be filed within eight weeks.

6. The office report dated 16th January, 2001 states that the letter of the Registry of this Court dated 12th May, 2000 addressed to the Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. was returned with the postal remark "refused to take the envelope, hence returned. In the affidavit which we have directed the concerned Secretary of the State of U.P. to make, an explanation in this behalf shall be furnished. Hereafter all service in these proceedings upon the State of U.P. shall be made upon the standing counsel of the State of U.P. in this Court.

7. List the matter on 4th May, 2001 for directions.

Order accordingly.