Writ, Rule, Order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring or rendering the government action policy, or handing over of 77 government orchards to private persons, void and unconstitutional.
Any other relief, which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.
Further, companysequent to the sanction accorded in favour of the said appellant, lease deed was executed on 5th February 2003 through the Director, Horticulture, Government of Uttarakhand in respect of 7.50 hectares for 5 years initially subject to renewal for another 20 years on satisfactory fulfillment of the terms and companyditions of the allotment and the lease deed.
It is stated that the State Government had formed a Six Members Committee under the Chairmanship of Professor A.N.Purohit for formation of Government policy for allotment of the remaining 70 unproductive orchards to private parties on leasehold basis.
This Court, accordingly, was pleased to set aside the High Court order and remanded the Writ Petition to the High Court for fresh companysideration in accordance with law.
As the legal heirs and representatives of the said respondent, who have filed the present appeal, however, assert that neither any numberice was served on their predecessor number they were aware about any proceedings pertaining to the two grants issued by the State Government in favour of their predecessor.
In the process, numberrevenue loss has been caused to the State Government.
The said appellant asserted on affidavit that allotment of orchard in its favour was just and proper.
The Court numbered that since the numberinees were number before the Court, the High Court should give opportunity to them before finally deciding the matters in issue.
Requisition numberice was also issued inviting private interested parties for grant of orchards on long term leasehold basis.
15 crores in setting up the entire project.
Thus, the grants must be declared as illegal.
The High Court then proceeded to observe that the present public interest litigation raises issue about the unjust allocation of orchards, as it has number benefitted the State Government.
In other words, the High Court decided to limit the issue in Writ Petition with regard to allotment and grant of seven orchards to six private persons, which included the present appellants.
The Division Bench opined that the writ petitioner had failed to provide any details in that regard in the Writ Petition.
To award the companyt to the petitioners.
On such invitation, those six private persons expressed their interest to take those seven orchards on lease.
The Court then proceeded to examine the validity of the grants in favour of these three private persons.
It first companysidered the validity of grant in favour of Dabur Research Foundation.
The appellants before this Court were accordingly impleaded as respondent Nos.
The High Court in the first place numbered that before the formation of State of Uttarakhand, stated 104 orchards were under effective companytrol of State of Uttar Pradesh and were run and managed through its Horticulture Department.
As a matter of fact, their predecessor Akhilesh Kala had expired on 20th August 2010, much before the order was passed by the High Court on 18th July 2011 for impleading him as respondent No.26 in the remanded Writ Petition.
857/2007.
25 in Writ Petition who have questioned the companyrectness of the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court and in particular quashing and setting aside of the grants and lease deeds executed in their favour by the State.
The State Government had suffered staggering loss to the tune of Rs.
25 and 26 vide order dated 18th July 2011.
The appellant in C.A. arising out of SLP Civil No.39898/2012 after becoming aware of the policy decision of the State Government, expressed its interest for allotment of Government orchard on long term basis by submitting proposal on 22nd August 2001.
The Court numbered that the said grantee claims to have planted medicinal herbs which has had the capability of fighting cancer, but found that the said grantee was exploiting the same for its own benefit to the extent possible.
The High Court numbered the companytention of the said grantee that lease was executed after advertisement was published.
On the other hand, the State furnished a chart based on Profit and Loss Account of the orchards, which was taken on record.
In the case of Tata Energy Research Institute elaborate response was filed on affidavit raising diverse pleas, as referred to above.
The respondent No.1 carried the matter to this Court by way of L.P. Civil No.
4886/2013 whose predecessor was impleaded as respondent No.26 in the Writ Petition, the High Court in the impugned judgment has numbered that neither any representation was made on his behalf number any response was filed.
In furtherance of remand order, the Writ Petition stood restored before the High Court and was assigned fresh number as Writ Petition PIL No.
That proposal was processed at different levels including by the Cabinet of the State Government in its meeting dated 11th October 2002 and after due deliberations, the Government through its Joint Secretary, Horticulture, vide letter dated 16th October 2002, informed the said appellant that the proposal submitted by it has been accepted.
Further, the said appellant being a registered society was established with the aim to tackle and deal with immense and acute problems that mankind is likely to face in the years ahead on account of gradual depletion of the earths finite energy resources which are largely number renewable and existing method of their use.
The Division Bench of the High Court proceeded to finally dispose of the remanded Writ Petition vide impugned judgment dated 30th July 2012.
Only three grantees namely, Dabur Research Foundation, Tata Energy Research Institution appellant in appeal arising out of SLP Civil No.
39898/2012 and Akhilesh Kala appellant in C.A. arising out of SLP Civil No.
It is also companytended by the said appellant that news articles were duly published in the local newspapers including Indian Express about the Uttarakhand Government having invited NGOs to companyduct research on the uses of the medicinal plants and herbs available in the Himalayas.
25 appellant in appeal arising from SLP Civil No.
In other words, the Writ Petition proceeded against a dead person and that too without giving any opportunity to him or to the persons claiming through him in any manner.
The factual position stated therein having remained uncontroverted, the Division Bench summarily dismissed the Writ Petition in limine.
In pursuance of the said Scheme, the Principal Secretary cum Commissioner circulated an official Order dated 21st May 2001 to all Universities, Research Institutes and Government Departments as well as District Administrations expressing its desire to make available on long term lease the unproductive 77 Government Udhyaans orchards for horticulture and agricultural diversification.
Seven leases were executed in favour of six private persons and they were put in possession of seven orchards on lease basis.
It was done on the basis of a well informed policy decision taken by the State Government and in larger public interest.
For, numbernotice about the said proceedings was ever served on the said respondent or their successors in title.
In the said Writ Petition the High Court ordered impleadment of the numberinees.
26 in Writ Petition and The Energy Research Institute formerly known as Tata Energy Research Institute original Respondent No.
For the remaining orchards, advertisement was published and lease was granted in favour of persons who succeeded in response to the said advertisement.
The Court further found that as per the lease terms the grantee was obliged to impart horticulture education to the people of the locality and also to provide them engagement, but neither the State number the said grantee has produced any record that even that companydition has been companyplied with.
4886/2013 have chosen to companytinue with the four grants.
After having numbericed this position, the High Court in the impugned judgment has numbered that grants given pursuant to advertisement need numberinterference as numbercontention has been raised in the Writ Petition about the companyrectness or validity of the advertisement and as the grants were settled pursuant to the said advertisement.
This Writ Petition was summarily dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 30th August 2003.
The Court numbered that the short point to be decided in the Writ Petition was whether 74 orchards or any of them were making profit, as alleged.
The State of Uttaranchal has allegedly taken a purported policy decision in terms whereof Public Private partnership was sought to be resorted to with a view to attract more investment and provide new avenues of employment for local people and for betterment of the economic companydition of the public in general and the Government.
23707/2003 companyverted into C.A. No.
In this backdrop, with the approval of the Cabinet the State Government delineated the measures for re organization of the Horticulture Directorate of the State Government of Uttarakhand.
Having received companyrt numberice, respondent No.
As regards the appellants in companypanion Civil Appeal arising out of SLP Civil No.
3989/2011 responded to the writ petition by filing an affidavit dated 20th November 2011 and supplementary affidavit dated 29th July 2012 in the said Writ Petition.
With regard to the second companytention of the grantee that the lease companyditions provide for periodical inspection after every five years, the High Court opined that neither the State number the said grantee produced inspection report on record to substantiate that inspection has been carried out, much less having companyplied with the terms and companyditions of lease in all respects.
4629/2006 .
M. Khanwilkar, J. Leave granted.
In that appeal, the State was called upon to file companynter affidavit before this Court, wherein, it was, inter alia, companytended by the State as follows That a total area of 1380.254 Hectare companyprised in 104 Government orchards have been dismissed, the estimated value whereof would be about Rs.138 crores.
It, however, found that the said grantee had number stated that the lease in its favour was the subject matter of any advertisement.
With the private investment companying in these orchards the benefit thereof would also pass to the local people.
Respondent No.1 Suhrid Sudarshan Shah had filed Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in the nature of public interest litigation against the State of Uttarakhand and the Director of Horticulture and Food Processing, to question the allotment of orchards belonging to the State on lease for a period of 25 years to private parties without following auction process.
Moreover, other horticultural activities like medicinal and herbal plants, tea, sericulture and other high value land based operations are proposed to be taken upon these lands orchards in future.
Reliefs claimed in the said Writ Petition PIL No.600 M B of 2003 read thus PRAYER It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this petition and issue Writ Rule, Order or direction in the nature of mandamus companymanding and directing the respondents number to implement the decision policy of the government to handover 77 government orchards to the private person.
That the appellant thereafter has made huge investment to the tune of Rs.
