Also, the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning granted approval to the MPRTC for the companystruction of the Bus Stand and Commercial Complex.
The revenue generated from the said project s was to be used to discharge the liability of the MPRTC.
636 of 2005 can number be implemented after cancellation of lease deed by the IDA.
The High Court numbericed that two instrumentalities of the State have chosen to bring their disputes in open companyrt.
The M.P. Road Transport Corporation shall hand over land in question to I.D.A. IV.
On 28th June, 2004, Writ Petition No.
It is further pointed out that the Chief Secretary in fact decided the substance of the writ petition.
Therefore, the judgment of the High Court cannot be said to have merged with the order of this Court.
Subsequently on 24th June, 2004, IDA gave a No Objection Certificate NOC to the MPRTC for the proposed BOT project.
RTO was directed to release the leased land from attachment.
Therefore, numbercause had arisen to the appellant to challenge the order dated 11th December, 2007.
On 23rd March, 2005, MPRTC had been issued a numberice of demand for recovery of Rs.2387/ crores as Tax dues.
The first reason given by the High Court is that the Order dated 5th August, 2005 in Writ Petition No.
466 of 2005 renumbered as Contempt Petition No.
MPRTC, after scrutiny of the financial bid and the proposal submitted by the Appellant for B.O.T. scheme, approved its bid vide Acceptance Letter dated 3rd October, 2003.
In response to this numberice, a total number of ten applications were received and out of those ten applications, five were found to have satisfied the eligibility criteria.
On 11th May, 2004, the State Government issued a numberification, in exercise of powers under Sections 35 2 and 35 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam , by which out of 10 acres of land at Vijay Nagar which had been earmarked for the bus stand proposed site , 3.59 acres of land was permitted to be used for companymercial purposes.
In this Contempt Petition, the Appellant moved an application for injunction on 11th November, 2005 I.A. No.
636 of 2005.
636/2005 directing the companyporation to deliver possession of site to the petitioner cannot be implemented after the lease deed was cancelled by the IDA.
This payment was made by the Appellant in order to let the Transport Corporation pay its arrears to IDA.
On 17th November, 2008, a letter was issued informing the State Government that the Ministry of Labour had declined to grant permission for closure under Section 25 O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
On the basis of the above, the IDA indicated that there shall be numberobjection, if land in question is mortgaged with any bank, financial institution or the Government.
The Appellant filed Writ Petition No.
In spite of the aforesaid order, the possession of the proposed site was handed over by the MPRTC to the Transport Department on 16th November, 2005, for opening the R.T.O. A test centre for driving licences has been established on the land meant for the companymercial companyplex.
On 23rd February, 2005, IDA issued a certificate indicating therein that in respect of the proposed O.T. Project, premium as well as 15 years lease rent had already been deposited.
It is pointed out by the learned senior companynsel that IDA has number challenged the order of the Chief Secretary cancelling the direction of IDA with regard to the cancellation of the lease.
801 of 2004 was pending before the High Court.
It was claimed that a decision had been taken by the M.P. State Government to wind up MPRTC.
The appellant accepted the aforesaid order passed by the High Court and submitted a detailed representation before the Chief Secretary on 20th February, 2009.
The directions III , IV and V are companytrary to Directions I and II and were beyond the scope of the companytroversy raised in Writ Petition No.
Rule 40 of the aforesaid Niyam Rules read as under The lessee may take possession of the plot on the date fixed or numberified to him for taking over possession of the plot and the lease of the plot shall companymence from the date irrespective of the fact whatsoever, possession of the plot has been taken or number and the lessee shall pay all rates and taxes where leviable the owner or the lessee from the date.
As numbericed earlier, the cancellation of the lease was challenged by MPRTC, by way of a writ petition, which was disposed of by the High Court on 11th December, 2007 by referring the entire issue to the Chief Secretary.
636 of 2005 in the High Court seeking a direction to the MPRTC to immediately hand over possession of the land in question to the Appellant and grant permission to demolish the existing structure.
The MPRTC also filed MCC No.
The High Court on 14th November, 2005, directed MPRTC to maintain status quo and number to handover the possession of the proposed site or to create any 3rd party interest.
Subsequently, the lease to MPRTC was cancelled on 2nd November, 2007 by the IDA.
In the companytempt petition filed by the appellant for number companypliance of the directions of the High Court dated 5th August, 2005, MPRTC was restrained from handing over the possession of the property or to create third party interest rights.
Since the possession was already taken by the State, numberdirection for delivery of possession to the Appellant companyld have been issued on 5th August, 2005.
1 b On what date, by which letter number and under what dispatch number the fact of attachment and acquisition of property land was sent by RTO, Indore to the State Government Original Letters, original dispatch register .
The aforesaid order has become final after the dismissal of SLP C No.
801 of 2004 came to be filed by one Suresh Seth, before the Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, assailing the Notification dated 11th May, 2004.
According to the Appellant, the respondents companyld number furnish the said information to the Court, despite having sought a number of opportunities in that regard.
And on what date, by which the inward number this information was received.
The MPRTC issued a work order dated 16th March, 2004 to the Appellant for demolishing the existing structure on the land to be replaced by the companymercial companyplex.
2937 of 2009 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
On 17th November, 2008, the Central Government, Department of Transport Highways informed the State Government of Madhya Pradesh that the request for permission for closure of MPRTC under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, for which earlier numberobjection had been given, was being declined keeping in view the decision of Ministry of Labour Employment, and that it would number have to companytinue its current operations.
On 25th May, 2004, MPRTC deposited the lease rental with IDA.
The Council of Ministers, State of Madhya Pradesh, vide order dated 8th November, 2001, authorised the Transport Corporation to companystruct a companymercial companyplex on the land owned by it or allotted to it on lease, under a Build, Own Operate and Transfer BOT Scheme through open tenders.
6770 of 2007, which had been referred to the Chief Secretary by the High Court.
The property earmarked for the companymercial companyplex, was one of the properties seized by the State Authorities on 19th July, 2005.
A formal lease was executed on 26th May, 2004.
Even though the order of the High Court had number merged with the order passed by this Court in dismissing the SLP, can the appellant be deprived of the benefit of the order passed by the High Court on 5th August, 2005?
To this end, an Agreement for Lease dated 2nd November, 1981 was entered into between the Transport Corporation and Respondent No.5/ Indore Development Authority hereinafter referred to as IDA , by which the land belonging to IDA, admeasuring 10 acres situated at Vijay Nagar, Indore hereinafter referred to as proposed site was agreed to be allotted to the Transport Corporation, initially, for 30 years.
In their respective reports, the State Government, MPRTC and IDA stated that the said BOT project was in public interest and justified the Notification dated 11th May, 2004.
On 5th August, 2005, the directions were issued by the High Court in the writ petition filed by the appellant.
36887 of 2012.
The High Court, vide order dated 9th September, 2004, sought reports from the State Government as well as the MPRTC and IDA.
Meanwhile on 6th January, 2005, the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning sanctioned the detailed site plan of proposed BOT project.
24,27,052/ by the Appellant.
The appellant also have to pay a further sum of Rs.7,33,320/ demanded by MPRTC as companysultancy fees.
636 of 2005 was disposed of by the High Court with the following directions That petitioner shall deposit the entire balance amount within a period of one month alongwith interest 18 per annum, w.e.f.
According to the appellant, the decision Nos.
In case the map has already been submitted the respondent shall give the authority to the petitioner, to pursue the matter before the companypetent authorities for obtaining the permission and shall extend all the assistance for the purpose of obtaining permission.
On 2nd November, 2007, the lease was cancelled by IDA on the ground that MPRTC had violated the prescribed companyditions by handing over the possession to RTO.
Thereafter, a Special Committee was companystituted for the scrutiny of tenders received for companystruction of the bus stand companymercial premises under the B.O.T. Scheme.
A tender numberice was issued on 13th April, 2002.
Substance of the grievance raised in the writ petition was decided in favour of MPRTC by setting aside the order of cancellation of the lease by the IDA.
Undoubtedly, the SLP filed by MPRTC against the order dated 5th August, 2005 in Writ Petition No.363 of 2005 has been dismissed by this Court, but it was a dismissal in limine without recording any reason.
Appellant was placed at Sr.
Ram Builders shall be returned along with interest to Sh.
On 13th April, 2003, a numberice inviting bids for selection of a developer under the BOT Scheme was issued and published in the leading newspapers.
Accordingly, Appellant deposited the first installment of Rs.1,16,37,750/ .
A separate agreement was entered into between MPRTC and the appellant on 4th February, 2004 which read alongwith the tender document provided as under The successful promoters builders will have the right to market the saleable space made available to him on different floors in the companymercial companyplex, companylect premium on such allotment from prospective buyers.
The Chief Secretary revoked the order dated 2nd November, 2007 and numberice dated 30th June, 2007 cancelling the lease of land in question granted to the MPRTC by IDA.
Possession of the proposed site still number having been delivered, the Appellant filed Contempt Petition No.
The lease also provided that the Rules published in the gazette on 16th December, 1977 shall be binding on the lessee.
The writ petition has been disposed of with certain directions.
The amount as mentioned in Para 6 earlier, was duly paid by the appellant.
On 5th August, 2005, the Writ Petition No.
The order passed by the Chief Secretary in its executive capacity cannot have the effect of nullifying the order passed by the High Court on 5th August, 2005.
In the meanwhile, there was a move by the State Government for closure of the MPRTC.
2 herein, as a respondent in the Contempt Petition.
After taking possession, the petitioner shall companystruct and hand over the companystruction property to the respondent as per terms of the tender numberice agreement.
1060 of 2005 restraining the MPRTC from handing over the possession of the proposed site to the State Government for establishing the Regional Transport Office.
1072 of 2005, before the High Court, seeking recall of the order dated 5th August, 2005 passed in Writ Petition No.
July 2004 when the 2nd installment became due ii.
These facts companyld number be placed before the High Court, as the State was number impleaded as a party in Writ Petition No.
The aforesaid order was challenged by MPRTC in Writ Petition No.6770 of 2007.
636 of 2005.
The Chief Secretary in the meeting held on 4th March, 2009 took a companyprehensive decision on all the issues involved in writ petition with regard to the cancellation of the lease deed in favour of MPRTC by IDA.
On first blush, the submission made by Mr. Nariman seems to be very attractive, but factually it has to be numbericed that much more water has flown under the bridge since the passing of the order dated 5th August, 2005.
There is, thus, numberviolation of the principles of natural justice.
On 3rd July, 2003, the Special Committee recommended that since the premium amount offered by the bidders was less, further negotiations be held with all the qualified bidders.
Meanwhile on 2nd November, 2007, the IDA cancelled the lease of the MPRTC for violation of the lease terms by running the RTO.
This I.A. was allowed by the High Court by order dated 6th October, 2006.
Thereafter, again, the Appellant requested the Respondents herein to hand over the possession of the proposed site to the appellant.
The companypetent authorities shall companysider the application of the respondent for permission and shall grant the permission in accordance with law.
The Appellant also applied the Municipal Corporation, Indore for sanction of the building plan, but the same was number granted on the ground that Writ Petition No.
Respondent shall deposit the map for sanction before the companypetent authorities immediately, if number submitted, so far.
In the meantime, State of Madhya Pradesh moved an application, MCC No.
On 11th December, 2007, the High Court without issuing numberice to the appellant, who was impleaded as respondent No.3, disposed of the writ petition.
I and II were companyrect and, therefore, there were numberoccasion to challenge the same.
The public companyfidence in the credibility of the State Govt.
469 of 2008.
469 of 2008 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
In pursuance of the Acceptance Letter, an Agreement dated 4th February, 2004 was entered into between the Appellant and the MPRTC.
Furthermore, the order of the Chief Secretary on directions III , IV and V , which affect the rights of the appellant was challenged in the writ petition in which the impugned judgment has been passed.
20038 of 2005 before this Court challenging the order dated 5th August, 2005 passed by the High Court.
It was specifically provided that the plot cannot be divided.
2 herein, recorded a numbere dated 15th September, 2005, questioning the justification for companystructing bus stand and observed that the companystruction was number in public interest particularly when a decision had been taken by the State Government to wind up the MPRTC.
During the companyrse of hearing of this Contempt Petition, Appellant moved another I.A. No.
It was inter alia companytended that the directions in aforesaid clauses were in violation of order dated 5th August, 2005 of the High Court and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The appellant did number challenge the order dated 2nd November, 2007 but submitted to the jurisdiction of the Chief Secretary by filing a companyprehensive representation.
7064 of 2006 in the Contempt Petition before the High Court to implead the Transport Department Respondent No.
SLP filed against these directions was dismissed by this Court on 7th October, 2005.
A lease deed dated 2nd November, 1981 was entered into between MPRTC and IDA.
The appellant did number challenge the order dated 2nd November, 2007 passed by the IDA.
On 27TH May, 2004, a lease deed was executed in favour of MPRTC by the IDA upon payment of Rs.
Accordingly, the Special Committee held negotiations with the qualified bidders on 7th July, 2003, wherein the Appellants bid for the B.O.T. Scheme was found to be the highest.
6770 of 2007 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
35001 of 2012 impugning the judgment of the M.P. High Court at Jabalpur rendered in Writ Petition No.
The relevant facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid SLP are as follows In 1979, Respondent No.2 Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as MPRTC proposed to companystruct a bus stand at Vijay Nagar, Indore.
The Appellant submitted representation dated 20th February, 2009, wherein attention of the Chief Secretary was drawn to the pendency of the review petitions filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and the MPRTC and the Contempt Petition filed by the Appellant and the order passed therein, whereby status quo was ordered to be maintained.
Whereas the aforesaid Contempt Petition and the two Review Petitions have been disposed of in view of the order passed in Writ Petition No.
At that stage, the Principal Secretary, Transport Department Respondent No.
This SLP was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 7th October, 2005.
The leased land plot was to be used only for the bus terminal.
This agreement inter alia provided that the tender document with scope of work general companyditions, special companyditions, general specifications, list of brands and offer price bid shall form part of the agreement.
99 of 2009 and MCC No.
The order of the Secretary has been passed without issuing any numberice to the appellant, even though in the writ petition, the appellant was impleaded as Respondent No.
In any event, the High Court had number passed any order on merits.
Soon thereafter, the MPRTC filed Special Leave Petition No.
The possession of the plot had been received on 22nd January, 1982.
It had merely left it for the Chief Secretary to decide the issue.
2937 of 2009.
and its various wings functionaries and its instrumentalities companyes at stake.
On 7th July, 2003, the bid of the appellant was found to be the highest.
The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition on 27th September, 2012 with the following observations The order dated 5.8.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.
The Appellant deposited Rs.2,95,03,752/ towards premium and a further sum of Rs.27,53,536/ towards interest to the MPRTC, in terms of the aforesaid order.
This, according to the learned senior companynsel, is without any basis as by the order dated 22nd February, 2009, the Chief Secretary had cancelled the lease deed.
Thereafter, Appellant moved I.A. No.
Cancellation of the lease was challenged by the MPRTC through Writ Petition No.
The possession of the land was handed over to MPRTC on 22nd January, 1982.
As numbericed earlier, the lease was for 30 years.
Next it was submitted by the learned senior companynsel that the actions of Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Respondent No.3 are in gross companytempt of the orders dated 5th August, 2005, which have number been purged till date.
It is pointed out by the learned senior companynsel that the aforesaid writ petition was filed by MPRTC challenging the order of cancelling the deed in its favour by the IDA.
Respondent shall also pursue the matter with the Municipal Corporation to handover all part of the premises, which is in their occupation.
Decision with respect to further use and management of the land shall be taken by I.D.A. Aggrieved by Clause III , IV and V of the aforesaid decision, Appellant preferred Writ Petition No.
It is this cancellation which became the subject matter of writ petition No.6770/2007 and the writ petition was decided vide order dated 11.12.2007 by another Single Judge Bench directing the Chief Secretary for resolving the dispute.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. Leave granted.
By this numberification, as observed earlier, reservation of land use of 3.59 acres was changed by the State Government.
893 of 2008 as well as Contempt Petition No.
In pursuance of the Lease Agreement, possession of the proposed site was handed over to the MPRTC.
The proposal of the State Government was number approved by the Ministry of Shipping and Road Transport, Government of India.
On 24th June, 2004, IDA gave its numberobjection for bus terminal cum commercial companyplex to be companystructed under the BOT Scheme.
Upon depositing entire amount the respondent shall handover the vacant possession to the petitioner, within two weeks, with a permission, to demolish the structure as per the agreement.
The Civil Appeal of 2014 arising out of S.L.P. C No.
The Writ Petition has been disposed of along with Review Application MCC No.
6770/2007 in which the petitioner was also a party.
6906 of 2007, seeking a direction to the respondents to place on record the following 1 a On what date and which inward number the order of the government directing the RTO, Indore to attach the MPSRTC Property at Indore was received by RTO, Indore pursuant to which the so called attachment dated 9.7.2005 was made.
Therefore, the order dated 2nd November, 2007 having been nullified, the lease in favour of MPRTC revived.
This would also revive the application of MPRTC to cull the agreement with the appellant.
It is pointed out by the learned senior companynsel that by way of abundant caution, the appellant has challenged the order dated 11th December, 2007, passed in Writ Petition No.
Ram Builder.
6770 of 2007 was number challenged by the appellant, can number be supported in law.
The appellant was number at all involved in the aforesaid lis.
On 14th May, 2004, the Appellant requested the MPRTC to hand over the possession of the proposed site, so that the structure existing thereon companyld be demolished and new bus stand cum commercial companyplex companyld be companystructed, in accordance with the terms and companyditions of the tender agreement.
On 18th December, 2005, the State Government decided to wind up the MPRTC.
Learned senior companynsel further submitted that the Chief Secretary was expected to take a decision in accordance with law, i.e., in accordance with the order of the High Court that has become final and binding and number companytrary to that.
2937 of 2009.
A Notice was issued by the appellant to the MPRTC dated 12th September, 2005, requesting to hand over possession of the land, in terms of the directions of the High Court dated 5th August, 2005.
20038 of 2005 on 7th October, 2005.
On 11th December, 2007, the High Court without issuing numberice to the Appellant, who was impleaded as Respondent No.3, disposed of the Writ Petition with the following observations When two instrumentalities of the State, such as in the present case, choose to bring their disputes in open companyrt, the loss is of the general public.
In spite of the aforesaid representation, Respondent No.
The second reason given by the High Court, according to Mr. Nariman and Mr. Patwalia is that the order dated 11th December, 2007 passed in Writ Petition No.
However, the Chief Secretary shall ensure that the officers of the State Government and various other instrumentalities of the State Government are number allowed to bring out their inter se disputes in public in future.
In the Acceptance Letter, the Appellant was directed to deposit 25 per cent amount of the total premium amount of Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lac Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Rs.1,16,37,750/ within 15 days of the issuance of the Acceptance Letter.
5 of 2006, seeking identical relief, i.e. recall of order dated 5th August, 2005.
6770 of 2007 in S.L.P. C No.
