1

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.32507 OF 2013
Pathan Mohammed
Suleman Rehmatkhan

Petitioner

Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors.

Respondents
ORDER

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1.

The State of Gujarat, it is seen, in the year 2005

thought of developing an International Financial Services

City at Ahmedabad at par with the globally benchmarked
financial centres such as Sinjuku-Tokyo, Lujiazui-Shanghai,
La Defense Paris, London Dockyard, having offshore
banking facilities.

The State conducted detailed study

through its wholly owned company called Gujarat State

Financial Services Limited (GSFSL).

The study report was

prepared in February 2006 which strongly recommended

Page1

2
for execution of the project after undertaking a feasibility
study. Since the project was first of its kind in the country
and involved commercial risk, the State Government
thought of undertaking the project of a public-private
partnership so that the responsibility and the risk, if any,
could be shared.
2.

The State organized the Vibrant Gujarat Urban

Summit in the year 2007.

The third respondent,

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd. (ILFS)

showed its commitment for development of the national
financial

services

centre

and

Memorandum

of

Understanding was signed with the State Government on

16.2.2007. On 15.5.2007, a joint venture agreement was
executed between the State represented by the Gujarat
Urban Development Company Limited (GUDC) and the
third respondent for forming a 50:50 joint venture
company in the name of Gujarat International Financial
Tech City Limited i.e. GIFT Company Ltd. on 22.3.2011 and
7.6.2011 the State Government issued and allotted 412
acres of land to the fourth respondent i.e. GIFT Company

Page2

3
Ltd. and 250 acres of land to its wholly owned subsidiary
i.e. GIFT SEZ Limited with a right to mortgage while
retaining ownership thereof with the State Government.
3.

On 18.8.2011, the fifth respondent, Government of

India, issued a notification under Special Economic Zones

Act, 2005, for the area of 261 acres of land for
development, operation and maintenance of the project.
The

Government

of

India

on

27.12.2011,

accorded

approval to the GIFT SEZ Limited for setting up of an

International Financial Services Centre.

Facts reveal, by

April 2013, out of the estimated investment of Rs.9,700

crore for the entire proposed project, an amount of Rs.450
crore has already been spent by fourth respondent
towards development expenses in creating infrastructure.
Fourth respondent has already constructed around 12.8
kms. of roads in the township.

The fourth respondent has

also constructed a water treatment plant and sewerage

treatment plant having respective capacity of 3 MLD and
2.2 MLD and distict cooling system, including power substation for 66 KV, utility tunnel of around 2.2 kms. and

Page3

4
automated waste collection system for load of around 5
TPD.

The fourth respondent has also constructed an

artificial water body known as Samriddhi Sarovar having

circumference of 1.5 kms, and a water pumping station at
Nabhoi and a pipeline of almost 12 kms. has been laid to
provide water from Narmada canal to the township.
Various other activities are also going-on on a war-footing.
4.

The project picked up momentum and nobody

challenged the joint venture agreement or the decisions

taken by the State Government to allot lands to the fourth
respondent for creating infrastructure for development
and operation of the project. The Comptroller and Auditor
General of India (CAG), however, had made certain
remarks in his report no.2 of 2013 for the year ending on
31st March, 2011, stating that the performance audit
revealed a number of system and compliance deficiencies
and the State Government did not adopt a uniform policy
in alienation and allotment of land.

Further, it was also

stated that the delay in finalization has resulted in

blocking up of revenue of the Government and there was

Page4

5
no mechanism for review and correction of incorrect
orders issued by the subordinate officers to safeguard
Government revenue and that no proper monitoring
system existed in the Department to ascertain and vacate
encroachment cases. Relevant portion of the CAG report
reads as follows :3.5.13 Inconsistent decision to allot land at token
amount
Gujarat Urban Development Company Limited
(GUDC), a Government Company was authorised by
Government in May 2007 to undertake the Gujarat
International Finance City project (GIFT city) in a joint
venture with Infrastructure Leasing & Financial
Services Ltd. (IL&FS) for setting up an International
Finance City. Subsequently, a Company called GIFT
Company Ltd, (the Company) was formed by IL&FS
and GUDC as a joint venture.
As per the direction of the Government in Revenue
Department, Collector, Gandhinagar handed over
advance
possession
of
Government
land
admeasuring 26,77,814 [Link]. valued by the
DLVC/SLVC during September 2007 to December
2008 at Rs.500 crore situated at fourteen survey
numbers of four Talukas of Gandhinagar district to
GUDC for setting up the GIFT city. The GUDC
proposed (June 2007) to Government for relaxation in
payment of occupancy price for the land. Chief
Secretary,
Principal
Secretaries
of
Revenue
Department, Finance Department and UDUHD opined
that the land shall be allotted at market value as per
the extant policy on valuation of Government land.
However, moratorium period of two years shall be
allowed for payment of 50 per cent of the value of
land and remaining 50 per cent payable as a soft

Page5

6
loan. Meanwhile, Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Govt. of India accorded a formal approval in January
2008 to GIFT Company Ltd., for the proposed Multi
Services SEZ covering an area of 10,11,750 [Link].
(250 acres).
As per GR dated 22.11.2004, if the allotment could
not be made within completion of two years from the
date of DLVC's valuation, it was to be refixed afresh.
The land was allotted in April/June 2011 by
Government to the Company after expiry of two
years from the date of valuation of DLVC, though
fresh valuation was not done. Scrutiny of Cabinet
note indicated that Collector, Gandhinagar had
stated that the value of the allotted land was
approximately Rs.2,760 Crore. However, Cabinet
allotted 10,11,744 [Link]. of land to GIFT SEZ Ltd.,
and 16,66,070 [Link]. to GIFT Company Ltd., for a
nominal price of rupee one with the condition that
during the first phase of the project, the surplus
amount received by the developers shall be divided
between Government and the two Companies in
50:50 ratio. During the execution of subsequent
phases, the surplus amount, which may be received
over and above the base cost of the project shall be
divided between Government and the GIFT Company
Ltd., in 80:20 ratio.
We noticed that land was allotted without
ascertaining its value as on the date of allotment.
Advance possession of land was given to an
organisation other than Boards/ Corporations/ SEZ in
contravention of the Government policy. Land was
allotted negating the views of Finance Department,
Revenue Department and UDUHD without collecting
occupancy price to a minimum extent of Rs.500
crore as on the dates of advance possession of land.
After this was pointed out, the Government stated
(July 2012) that it was a Public Private Partnership
(PPP) project and development rights were only given
and ownership rights vested with the Government.
The reply is not acceptable as the Government land
is allotted at new and restricted tenure wherein the

Page6

7
allottee is not entitled to sell, transfer or mortgage
the land without the permission of the Collector.
However, in this case, the Government authorised
the allottee to mortgage/lease the land without
seeking permission from the Collector/Government.
Further, the State Government has produced no
records to indicate that allotment for the GIFT city
was on the basis of PPP. The State Government
despite repeated requests did not produce to audit
the Joint Venture Agreement signed between
Government/GUDC and IL&FS. Non production of the
records to audit has the consequential effect of
limiting the scope of audit.
3.5.14 Conclusion
The performance audit revealed a number of system
and compliance deficiencies. Government did not
adopt a uniform policy in alienation and allotment of
land. Delay in finalisation of valuation also resulted in
blocking up of revenue of the Government. There
was no mechanism for review and revision of
incorrect orders issued by the subordinate officers to
safeguard
Government
revenue.
No
proper
monitoring system exists in the Department to
ascertain and vacate encroachment cases.

5.

The petitioner herein filed a Public Interest Petition

before the Gujarat High Court primarily based on the

report of CAG seeking a declaration that the action of the
State Government for allotting land in favour of the
respondent company was illegal and void and sought for
an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation
and also for other consequential reliefs. The Gujarat High
Court after hearing all the parties at length and, after

Page7

8
elaborately considering the materials on record, framed
the following questions :

6.

(i)

Whether the report of the CAG by itself

can legally be made the basis for the
reliefs claimed in the petition?

(ii)

Whether the decision of the State

Government to develop an international
finance service city on the basis of a
public private partnership model with a
social objective could be termed as
arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of
favouritism and/or nepotism violating
the sole object of equality clause
embodied in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India?

(iii)

Whether the petition deserves to be

dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches?

The Gujarat High Court felt, though the Writ Petition

could have been dismissed on the ground of delay, the

Court still examined all the contentions raised by the
parties and recorded a clear finding on all the issues. The
High Court placed reliance on the judgment of this Court
in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India & others
(2013) 7 SCC 1 and held that having regard to the powers
conferred on the CAG, CAG is not entitled to question the
merits of the policy objectives of the State Government.

Page8

9
The Court also held that it cannot be said that the State
Government had given largesse to an individual according
to its sweet will and whims and took the view that the
Government took a conscious commercial decision after
perusing the pros and cons of the entire matter and that
the action of the respondent was not based on extraneous
considerations or vitiated by malafide exercise of powers.
Holding so, the writ petition was dismissed by the
impugned order, against which this special leave petition
has been preferred.
7.

We heard Shri Y.N. Oza, learned counsel for the

petitioner and perused the records, as well as counter

affidavit and reply affidavit filed by the parties before the
Gujarat High Court.

The entire case of the petitioner is

based on the CAG report.

The applicability and the

binding characteristics of such report were considered by

the High Court.

In Arun Agrawals case (supra), this

Court held as follows:We may, however, pointed out that since the
report is from a constitutional functionary, it
commands respect and cannot be brushed
aside as such, but it is equally important to

Page9

10
examine the comments what respective
Ministries have to offer on the CAGs Report.
The Ministry can always point out, if there is any
mistake in the CAGs report or the CAG has
inappropriately appreciated the various issues.
8.

CAG is a key figure in the system of parliamentary

control of finance and is empowered to delve into the

economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the
departmental authorities or other bodies had used their
resources in discharging their functions. CAG is also the
final audit authority and is a part of the machinery through
which

the

legislature

enforces

the

regulatory

and

economy in the administration of public finance, as has

been rightly pointed out by the High Court.

But we

cannot lose sight of the fact that it is the Government

which

administers

and

runs

accountable to the people.

requirements

and

needs

the

State,

which

is

States welfare, progress,

of

the

people

are

better

answered by the State, also as to how the resources are to

be utilized for achieving various objectives.

If every

decision taken by the State is tested by a microscopic and

a suspicious eye, the administration will come to stand still
and the decisions-makers will lose all their initiative and

Page10

11
enthusiasm. At hindsight, it is easy to comment upon or
criticize the action of the decision maker.
decisions

taken

by

the

State

or

its

Sometimes,

administrative

authorities may go wrong and sometimes it may achieve

the desired results.

Criticisms are always welcome in a

Parliamentary democracy, but a decision taken in good

faith, with good intentions, without any extraneous
considerations, cannot belittled, even if that decision was
ultimately proved to be wrong.
9.

We have extensively referred to these principles in

Arun Agrawals case (supra), where we have held as

follows:This Court sitting in the jurisdiction cannot sit
in judgment over the commercial or business
decision taken by parties to the agreement,
after evaluating and assessing its monetary and
financial implications, unless the decision is in
clear violation of any statutory provisions or
perverse or taken for extraneous considerations
or
improper
motives.
States
and
its
instrumentalities can enter into various
contracts which may involve complex economic
factors. State or the State undertaking being a
party to a contract, have to make various
decisions which they deem just and proper.
There is always an element of risk in such
decisions, ultimately it may turn out to be
correct decision or a wrong one. But if the
decision is taken bona fide and in public
interest, the mere fact that decision has
ultimately proved to be wrong, that itself is not

Page11

12
a ground to hold that the decision was mala fide
or taken with ulterior motives.
10. Reference in this regard may also be made to the
judgment of this Court in Centre for Public Interest
Litigation & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2012 SC
3725, wherein it was held that when the CAG report is
subject to scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee and
the Joint Parliamentary Committee, it would not be proper
to refer the findings and conclusions contained therein.
The Court even went on to say that it is not necessary to
advert to the reasoning and suggestions made, as well.
11.

We have gone through the salient features of the

Project referred to in the various orders passed by the

State Government and the resolutions dated 22.3.2011
and 7.6.2011 allotting lands to fourth respondent and also
the notification dated 18.8.2011 issued under the Special
Economic Zones Act, 2005, and we are in agreement with
the High Court that it cannot be said that the State has
acted against public interest. The Government has noticed
the development and the employment opportunities that

Page12

13
the project would bring into the State. The decision taken
by the Government was also transparent and that the
Government has also got substantial stake in the PublicPrivate Partnership and has also taken care of its interests
while entering into the various agreements.

Learned

senior counsel fairly submitted that he is not attributing

any motives or stating that the decision was taken for
extraneous reasons, but contended that the Government
had, without any application of mind, parted with a large
tracks of land worth crores of rupees to the private party,
which is not in the interest of the State.
12. We are of the view that these are purely policy
decisions taken by the State Government and, while so, it
has examined the benefits the project would bring into the
State and to the people of the State. It is well settled that
non-floating of tenders or absence of public auction or
invitation alone is not a sufficient reason to characterize
the action of a public authority as either arbitrary or
unreasonable or amounted to mala fide or improper
exercise of power. The Courts have always held that it is

Page13

14
open to the State and the authorities to take economic
and management decision depending upon the exigencies
of a situation guided by appropriate financial policy
notified in public interest. We are of the view that is what
has been done in the instant case and the High Court has
rightly held so.

We, therefore, find no reason to entertain

this Special Leave Petition and the same is dismissed.

..J.
(K.S. Radhakrishnan)

..J.
(A.K. Sikri)
New Delhi
November 22, 2013

Page14