RAVI DEVELOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA PRATHISTHAN & ORS

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 654

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, P. SATHASIVAM

Case summary

RAVI DEVELOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA PRATHISTHAN & ORS.pdf

Judgment text

[2009] 8 S. C. R. 654 f RAVI DEVELOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA PRATHISTHAN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3459 of 2009) MAY 11, 2009 [K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. AND P. SATHASIVAM, J. ] ,~. Urban Development - Housing - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority - Joint venture - Public Private participation - Swiss Challenge Method - Award of contract to the initiator of the proposal - Held: Not arbitrary since the procedure has been followed - Sending proposal to Chief Minister, who was holding the portfolio of Housing - Not improper - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14. ,I • Government contracts - Scope ofJudicial Review is very limited - Judicial Review. Public - Private parlicipation schemes - In order to encourage the concept it should be duly published first so that private entities are aware of such schemes_- To avoid the ill· effects of unfairness, arbitrariness or ambiguity ce. rlain _. suggestions made to the State Government - Suggestions. ..

In the present appeals, the common issue involved was validity of Swiss Challenge Method adopted by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development A! Jthority (MHADA) on a pilot basis with respect to a proposal received from a private entrepreneur Mis. Ravi Developments for development of undeveloped land owned by MHADA. ~ ·- Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. It is also seen from the approved order of the Government of Maharashtra dated 17. 05. 2007 ttiat PRATHISTHAN & ORS. Swiss Challenge Method has to be applied in the area of Mira Road land, Kavesar land, Chitalsar Manpada land on Pilot Project basis and MHADA has to evolve its own policy for taking decision in future in identical cases. In ' those circumstances, requirement of innovativeness is not there in Swiss Challenge Method, even otherwise, the facts of the case clearly show that the proposal of Ravi Development under the Swiss Challenge Method was a new innovative venture for MHADA and for State of Maharashtra.

[Para 17] [672-8-E] 2. 1. MHADA and the State of Maharashtra placed relevant materials which show that at first Ravi Development submitted their proposal to the Chief Executive Officer, MHADA on 25. 08. 2006 and thereafter, ; ~ . to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra on 11. 10. 2006. It is clear from the provisions of MHADA Act, 1976, that MHADA is an undertaking working under the control and in coordination with the Housing Department of Government of Maharashtra. It was explained that Ravi Development on 25. 08. 2006 submitted the proposal to the CEO, MHADA and since no immediate decision was taken by MHADA level as the same was new proposal, therefore, on 11. 10. 2006 similar proposal was submitted by them to the Chief Minister of Government of Maharashtra.

The Chief Minister had portfolio of Housing Department and as per Rules 3 and 12 of Maharashtra Government Rules for Conduct of Business, 1975 business of the concerned Department of the Government are transacted by the Cabinet Minister of the said Department. In those circumstances, there was nothing wrong in submitting the same proposal to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra on 11. 10. 2006. If there was no decision by MHADA in respe~t of their proposal dated 25. 08. 2006, naturally the party concerned viz. , Ravi Development in the normal circumstances could approach to the higher authorities, in the case on hand, ( Cabinet Minister of Housing Department (i. e. Chief Minister of Maharashtra), hence rightly approached the Chief Minister by submitting the same proposal on 11. 10. 2006 which cannot be motivated or deemed as contrary to any of the Government orders.

It was pointed out that the Chief Minister or Government has not at all favoured Ravi Development and no order or endorsement to that effect was either made or reflected anywhere in the record. On the other hand, the Desk Officer of Housing Department of Government of Maharashtra, by letter dated 20. 10. 2006, simply forwarded the proposal submitted by Ravi Development to MHADA thereby calling upon a detailed report. Pursuant to the said communication, CEO, MHADA recommended the proposal of Ravi Development on 04. 12. 2006 and also submitted a detailed study report on 24. 04. 2007 to 0 Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Government of Maharashtra after examining the merits and derrnnits of ·west Bengal Joint Venture Method' and 'Jaipur Swiss ·Challenge Method' and recommended for following the Swiss Challenge Method and sought Government's approval. It is seen that thereafter, Housing Department of Government of Maharashtra, by letter dated 17. 05.

2007, issued directions to follow Swiss Challenge Method as recommended by MHADA and also directed MHADA to take policy decision at its own level for other similar proposals in future. It was pointed out that thereafter, by letter dated 14. 06. 2007, in terms of the Ravi Development's willingness to match the highest bid, MHADA took a decision on 22. 11. 2007 to award the said contract to Ravi Development. In those circumstances and in view of the materials placed, particularly, two letters dated 20. 10. 2006 and 10. 05. 2007 issued by the Housing •, Department of Government of Maharashtra, it is clear that no favouritism was ever shown to Ravi Development at the instance of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The contrary observations of the High Court are baseless and } ' ' RAVI DEVl::LOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA 657 PRATHISTHAN & ORS. not warranted. [Para 18] [672-F-H; 673-A-H; 674-A-C] 2. 2.

The materials placed by the State and MHADA show that on receipt of the representation from the Ravi Development without any endorsement or direction to consider the case of Ravi Development, the officer concerned merely forwarded the same to the Chief Executive Officer, MHADA to offer their remarks. A perusal ·"'- of the entire documents clearly shows that there was no attempt either from the authorities of the State of Maharashtra or from the Chief Minister to favour Ravi Development. [Para 19] [674-D-F] Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporatfon and Orhers (2000) 5 SCC 287, referred to. .... ~- ~ 3. 1. The legality of Swiss Challenge Method in its ' entirety is not challenged. Except the land at Mira Road, in respect of other two remaining properties, no challenge was ever raised till date by any party.

Only after issuance of public notice in the newspaper to follow Swiss Challenge Method, Krishna Pratisthan choose to file public interest litigation that too only in respect of land at Mira Road, Thane and admittedly no challenge was '( -4 raised in respect of other two properties. [Para 21] [675- D-F] 3. 2. MHADA conducted a detailed survey of Public Private Participation (PPP) options available for carrying out land developments for construction of better EWS, LIG and MIG houses at affordable price. In the report dated 24. 04. 2007, written to the Government, pros and cons of Joint Venture Method and Swiss Challenge Method are -.. + clearly reflected and Swi!? S Challenge Method is recommended with due application of mind. Therefore, on that count also, application of Swiss Challenge Method into present allotment of Mira Road land at Thane r is justified and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. [Para 23] [676-F-H; 677-A] 3. 3.

In the Swiss Challenge Method, there is no provision for allowing other tenderers to raise the bid further, when "initiator of proposal" accepts to raise up to the highest bid. It was also brought to notice that even there was no such request by Shree Ostwal Builders Ltd. ... after Ravi Development accepting to match highest bid by their letter dated 14. 06. 2007. [Para 24] [677-B] 4. In the matters of Government contract, the scope for judicial review is very limited and that the Court cannot substitute its own decision for that of the government. [Para 25] [677-C] Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Air ~ .. India v. Cochin International Airport, (2000) 2 SCC 617; State of M. P. and Others v. Nandlal Jaiswal and Others, (1986) 4 SCC 566 and 5 M & T Consultants, Secunderabad v. S. Y. Nawab and Another, (2003) 8 SCC 100, relied on. 5.

The decision to apply Swiss Challenge Method clearly fell within the realm of executive discretion and in this case, exercised after due application of mind. It is ~ clear from the materials placed before this Court that there .. is neither arbitrariness nor unreasonableness in the adoption of the said policy. [Para 26] [678-D-E] 6. 1. Recently, there has been shift towards encouraging private participation in the government works and promoting of public-private partnership. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation in its National Urban Housing Habitat Policy, 2007 specifically mentions participation of private sector as one of its aims. It envisages that the State Government and the Central Government shall act as facilitators and enablers. The PRATHISTHAN & ORS. Maharashtra State Housing Policy dated 23. 07. 2007 provides for private participation.

Pursuant to the declared policy by the Central and State Governments, the Maharashtra State Housing Board and MHADA are well within their rights to apply the Swiss Challenge Method with respect to the MHADA lands that were lying undeveloped since the same was being applied only on trial basis as a method of encouraging private participation. [Para 27] [678-E-F] 6. 2. The State of Maharashtra, after due deliberations and study of the methodologies prevailing in the country for dealing with suo motu development proposals, decided to apply Swiss Challenge method to the proposal of Ravi Development. Further, Swiss . Challenge method was being applied by the State Government only on a pilot ... ,, . basis. The method is transparent inasmuch as all the parties were well aware of the "right of first refusal" accorded to the "originator of proposal".

As per the method which was known to all the parties the originator of the proposal must in consideration of his vision and his initiative be given to the benefit of matching the highest bid submitted. The said method is beneficial to the Government inasmuch as the Government does not lose any revenue as it is still getting the highest possible value. Further, in view of financial crunch and availability of undeveloped lands, National and State Housing Policies provide for encouragement of private participation. The State Government is also well within its rights to try out on pilot basis a methodology recognized internationally as well as in India. In those circumstances, the High Court is not justified in striking out the Swiss Challenge Method without allowing the State Government to exercise its executive discretion on a pilot basis.

It is not possible to reject the claim of State of Maharashtra and MHADA, in view of shortage of land, increasing cost r in housing sector, the Central and State Governments recommended strongly for public private joint ventures and in the said category Swiss Challenge method is the acceptable democratic method as compared to other options. [Para 27] [679-B-H; 680-A] 6. 3. The slums in urban area are primarily a resultant of shortage of supply of housing and shortage in supply of LIGIMIG category of housing. To ensure that the lands for public housing and metropolis like Mumbai are put to maximum utilization and maximum tenements are made available for families of MIG and LIG categories for which in the present scenario one of the way outs is joint venture development by public and private bodies. [Para 28] [680-B] Ramanna Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India & Ors. (1979) 2 SCC 489; E. P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3; Maneka Gandhi vs.

Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 and Erusion Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal (1975) 1 SCC 70, relied on. 7. The impugned pilot project or initiation taken by the Government of Maharashtra along with MHADA to encourage public-private participation is in accordance with the need of the time as well as a laudable effort. But to make it an effective approach Swiss Challenge Method or any other encouraging concept should be duly publicized first. The effort of public-private participation can only be possible when private e'\tities are aware of such scheme. Also_ in the~'S-cheme of availing a new systemJhorough ·rules and regulations are needed to be followed othe.. Wise unfairness, arbitrariness or ambiguity may creep in. In order to avoid such ill-effects the State Government is suggested to consider the following aspects:- -', (17) It is also seen from the approved order of the ' Government of Maharashtra dated 17. 05.

2007 that Swiss Challenge Method has to be applied in the area of Mira Road land, Kavesar land, Chitalsar Manpada land on Pilot Ptoject basis and MHADA has to evolve its own policy for taking decision in future in identical cases. In those circumstances, as rightly pointed out by Mr. G. E. Vahanwati, learned Solicitor General appearing for MHADA and Mr. P. P. Rao, learned senior counsel for Ravi Development that requirement of innovativeness is not there in Swiss Challenge Method, even otherwise, the above mentioned facts clearly show that the proposal of Ravi Development under the Swiss Challenge Method was a new innovative venture for MHADA and for State of Maharashtra. (18) The next ground on which the High court interfered with the decision of MHADA awarding contract for developing Mira ' Road in favour of Ravi Development was about the influence )' of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra.

With regard to the said allegation, the MHADA and the State of Maharashtra placed relevant materials which show that at first Ravi Development submitted their proposal to the Chief Executive Officer, MHADA on 25. 08. 2006 and thereafter, to the Chief Minister of Maha1·ashtra on 11. 10. 2006. It is clear from the provisions of MHADA Act, 1976, that MHADA is an undertaking working ~ under the control and in coordination with the Housing Department of Government of Maharashtra. It was explained that Ravi Development on 25. 08. 2006 submitted the proposal to the CEO, MHADA and since no immediate decision was PRATHISTHAN & ORS. (P. SATHASIVAM, J. ] "":-; taken by MHADA level as the same was new proposal, therefore, on 11. 10. 2006 similar proposal was submitted by them to the Chief Minister of Government of Maharashtra.

It was pointed out that the Chief Minister had portfolio of Housing Department and as per Rules 3 and 12 of Maharashtra Government Rules for Conduct of Business, 1975 - business of the concerned Department of the Government are transacted _,1-11! by the Cabinet Minister of the said Department. In those circumstances, there was nothing wrong in submitting the same proposal to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra on 11. 10. 2006. As rightly pointed out by Mr. P. P. Rao, learned senior counsel, if there was no decision by MHADA in respect of their proposal dated 25. 08. 2006, naturally the party concerned viz. , Ravi Development in the normal circumstances could approach to the higher authorities, in the case on hand, Cabinet Minister of ~ / " Housing Department (i. e. Chief Minister of Maharashtra), hence rightly approached the Chief Minister by submitting the same proposal on 11. 10. 2006 which cannot be motivated or deemed as contrary to any of the Government orders.

It was pointed out that the Chief Minister or Government has not at all favoured Ravi Development and no order or endorsement to that effect was either made or reflected anyw~ere in the record. On the other hand, the Desk Officer of Housing Department of A Government of Maharashtra, by letter dated 20. 10. 2006, simply forwarded the proposal submitted by Ravi Development to " MHADA thereby calling upon a detailed report. Pursuant to the said communication, CEO, MHADA recommended the proposal of Ravi Development on 04. 12. 2006 and also submitted a detailed study report on 24. 04. 2007 to Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Government of Maharashtra after examining the merits and demerits of 'West Bengal )oint . Venture Method' and 'Jaipur Swiss Challenge Method' and recommended for following the Swiss Challenge Method and sought Government's approval. It is seen that thereafter, Housing Department of Government of Maharashtra, by letter dated 17. 05.

2007, issued directions to follow Swiss Challenge Method as recommended by MHADA and also directed [2009] 8 S. C. R. . ,.. • MHADA to take policy decision at its own level for other similar proposals in future. It was pointed out that thereafter, by a letter dated 14. 06. 2007, in terms of the Ravi Developments willingness to match the highest bid, MHADA took a decision on 22. 11. 2007 to award the said contract to Ravi Development. In those circumstances and in view of the materials placed, particularly, two letters dated 20. 10. 2006 and 10. 05. 2007 issued by the Housing Department of Government of ). -, Maharashtra, it is clear that no favoritism was ever shown to Ravi Development at the instance of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. We are satisfied that contrary observations of the High Court are baseless and not warranted.

(19) Apart from the above information and conclusion by us, it was highlighted that MHADA, as a State Government Undertaking, works under the control of Housing Department .. of Government of Maharashtra and as per Section 164 of the MHADA Act, 1976, Government could issue instructions if really had to favour Ravi Development and the same would be statutorily binding on MHADA. However, the materials placed by the State and MHADA show that on receipt of the representation from the Ravi Development without any endorsement or direction to consider the case of Ravi Development, the officer concerned merely forwarded the same ' to the Chief Executive Officer, MHADA to offer their remarks. y As rightly pointed out, perusal of the entire documents clearly shows that there was no attempt either from the authorities of the State of Maharashtra or from the Chief Minister to favour Ravi Development. In such circumstances, the contention of the .

learned Solicitor General appearing for the State and MHADA is well founded and the contrary conclusion of the High Court is liable to be rejected. (20) In the public notice and bid documents dated 20. 05. 2007, it was specifically mentioned about the principle of "initia~or or proposer" and with the said understanding Shree Oslwal Builders Ltd. has participated in the tender process and PRATHISTHAN & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J. ] also gave an undertaking on 11. 06. 2007 while submitting their bid document. The following undertaking submitted by them which is not in dispute is as follows:- "We are well aware of Swiss Challenge method and that the original proposer of the suo moto proposal shall be 8 given opportunity to take up the project on the highest eligible bid offer. In case the original proposer agrees to · match his bid to the highest offer then the project shall be awarded in his favour. " In view of clear undertaking, as rightly pointed out by the State, .

after participation in tender process and failing in the same when the contract was awarded to Ravi Development by MHADA's decision dated 22. 11. 2007 only at that point of time i. e. on 11. 12. 2007 Shree Ostwal Builders filed a writ petition in the High Court. (21) It is relevant to mention that the legality of Swiss Challenge Method in its entirety is not challenged. Except the land at Mira Road, in respect of other two remaining properties, no challenge was ever raised till date by any party. Only after issuance of public notice in the newspaper to follow Swiss Challenge Method, Krishna Pratisthan choose to file public interest litigation that too only in respect of land at Mira Road, Thane and admittedly no challenge was raised in respect of other two properties. (22) It was submitted by the learned Solicitor General before us that as per the initial tender document, what was receivable for MHADA was 30,006 sq. mtr. construction (out of 70000 sq. mtr. construction) with 1.

2 Floor Space Index (FSI). · As per the rules, with the help of Transferable Development Rights (TOR), FSI can be extended upto 2 that means 0. 8 TOR • =65052. 80 sq. mtr. can be utilized. For this utilization of 0. 8 TOR i. e. additional construction of 65052. 80 sq. mtr. ,. MHADA was entitled to receive amount of Rs. 2750/- per sq. mtr. which comes to Rs. 17. 89 crores. However, it was pointed out that changing 14' the said terms in the approval order dated 22. 11. 2007, it is the assertion of MHADA that it gained more and Ravi Development had to loose more, as in view of the said amount of Rs. 17. 89 crores, Mis Ravi Development was directed to give additional constructed carpet area of 18841 sq. mtr. , whose actual market value comes to Rs. 60. 69 crores. Thus, it was pointed out that after the said alternate construction of Rs. 60. 69 crores is compared to receivable amount of Rs. 17. 89 crore, then, MHADA is in fact gaining advantage of Rs. 42. 80 crores.

It was brought to our notice that all the details are matter of record. In those circumstances, it was pointed out that the terms were altered to the great advantage of MHADA and more disadvantage of Ravi Development. (23) The further particulars furnished by the State of Maharashtra show that National Housing Policy & Maharashtra State Housing Policy promote Public-Private partnership for construction of EWS (Economically Weaker Section), LIG (Lower Income Group), MIG (Middle Income Group) Housing. MHADA is a major player for the same in state of Maharastra. Subsidy provided is not adequate and MHADA has no control on actual quality construction, therefore, MHADA has to construct low rise and ground floor structures with poor specifications so as to keep the prices of the EWS, LIG, MIG houses affordable to masses and FSI of 1.

20 is unutilized due to the low rise structures and poor specifications in almost all the layouts of MHADA in Mumbai and in Mumbai Metropolitan region and MHADA is finding it difficult to sell even these houses at concessional rates. Therefore, MHADA conducted detailed survey of Public Private Participation (PPP) options available for carrying out land developments for construction of better EWS, LIG and MIG houses at affordable price. In the ·report dated 24. 04. 2007, written to the Government, pros and cons of Joint Venture Method and Swiss Challenge Method are clearly reflected and Swiss. Challenge Method is recommended with due application of mind. Therefore, on that count also, application of Swiss Challenge Method into present PRATHISTHAN & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J. ] ..... allotment of Mira Road land at Thane is justified and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(24) As pointed out earlier, in the Swiss Challenge Method, there is no provision for allowing other tenderers to raise the bid further, when "initiator of proposal" accepts to raise up to the highest bid. It was brought to our notice that even there was no such request by Shree Ostwal Builders Ltd. after Ravi ,11 Development accepting to match highest bid by their letter dated 14. 06. 2007. (25) It is well settled principle that in the matters of Government contract, the scope for judicial review is very limited and that the Court cannot substitute its own decision for that of the government vide Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 and Air India vs. Cochin International Airport, • (2000) 2 sec 617. Even as early as in State of M. P. and Others vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and Others,.

(1986) 4 SCC 566, this Court held that when the State Government is granting licence for putting up a new industry, it is not at all necessary that it should advertise and invite offers for putting up such industry. The State Government is entitled to negotiate with those who have come up with an offer to set up such industry. In that case, the predominant purpose of the policy decision dated 30. 12. 1984 was to ensure construction and setting up - ( State Government only on a pilot basis. The method is transparent inasmuch as all the parties were well aware of the ''. right of first refusal" accorded to the "originator of proposal". As per the method which was known to all the parties the originator of the proposal must in consideration of his vision and his initiative be given to the benefit of matching the highest bid submitted.

As pointed out earlier, the said method is beneficial to the government inasmuch as the government does not loose any revenue as it is still getting the highest possible . ,,' _, value. Further, in view of financial crunch and availability of undeveloped lands, National and State Housing Policies provide for encouragement of private participation. The State Government is also well within its rights to try out on pilot basis a methodology recognized internationally as well as in India. In those circumstances, the·High Court is not justified in striking out the Swiss Challenge Method without allowing the State Government to exercise its executive discretion on a pilot basis.

It is not possible to reject the claim of State of Maharashtra and MHADA, in view of shortage of land, increasing cost in housing sector, the Central and State Governments recommended strongly for public private joint ventures and in the said category Swiss Challenge method is the acceptable democratic method as compared to other options. (28) The slums in urban area are primarily a resultant of shortage of supply of housing and shortage in supply of LIG/ MIG category of housing. To ensure that the lands for public housing and metropolis like Mumbai are put to maximum utilization and maximum tenements are made available for families of MIG and LIG categories for which in the present I( ' scenario one of the way outs is joint venture development by public and private bodies. (29) Due to shortage of land, ever increasing cost, and maximum utilization of permissible FSI, by adopting publicprivate joint ventures, it would be possible to minimize the cost of LIG, EWS and MIG categories.

In the present project, land is partially developed by MHADA with ground floor structures ,_ ) and low rise buildings with lower specifications so as to make housing affordable for EWS, LIG and MIG with the subsidies granted by the Government. The balance FSI cannot be utilized without high rise buildings which involves higher cost and expenses. Ravi Development has proposed multi-storied building to consume balance FSI with 60% number of tenements under LIG and EWS category as per OCR 33(5) of Mira Bhainder Municipal Corporation, which if constructed by MHADA will require higher cost of construction and subsidies required to make MIG, LIG houses will be quite high. In the --present project, constructed built up area with richer specifications is to be handed over by Ravi Development to MHADA free of costs in tum MHADA will be at liberty to price these tenements in accordance with policies of MHADA or as may be determined by MHADA.

Therefore, utilization of maximum permissible FSI, adopting higher specifications and effecting utilization of scarce land for housing and yet make LIG, MIG housing group financially attractive to the people is possible through joint venture of public and private bodies in which reasonable built area be available by private developer free of cost to MHADA. The above claim and concept cannot PRATHISTHAN & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J. ] ~be ignored lightly. _(30) Lastly, we conclude that the impugned pilot project or initiation taken by the Government of Maharastra along with MHADA to encourage public-private participation is in accordance with the need of the time as well as a laudable 8 effort. But to make it an effective approach Swiss Challenge Method or any other encouraging concept should be duly _,,-'f publicized first. The effort of public-private participation can only be possible when private entities are aware of such scheme.

Also in the scheme of availing a new system thorough rules and regulations are needed to be followed otherwise unfairness, arbitrariness or ambiguity may creep in. In order to avoid such ill-effects the State Government is suggested to consider the following aspects:- 1. The State/Authority shall publish in advance the " nature of Swiss Challenge Method and particulars; 2. Publish the nature of projects that can come under such method; 3. Mention/notify the authorities to be approached with respect to the project plans; 4. Mention/notify the various fields of the projects that _. can be considered under the method; 5. set rules regarding time limits on the approval of the project and respective bidding: 6. the rules are to be followed after a project has been approved by the respective authorities to be considered under the method. ,,. 7.

All persons interested in such developmental activities should be given equal and sufficient opportunity to participate in such venture and there should be healthy inter se competition amongst such developers. These suggestions are not exhaustive and the State is free to incorporate any other clauses for transparency and proper execution of the scheme. The State Government is suggested to frame regulations/instructions on the above lines and take necessary steps thereafter in future. (31) In view of the above discussion arid conclusion, the ~ , common impugned judgment and order dated 27. 03. 2008 of the Bombay High Court in W. P. (l) No. 2714 of 2007 and P. l. L. No. 72 of 2007 are set aside. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. No costs. ' G. N. Appeals allowed. )