ORDER

1. The Maharashtra Government allotted certain plots of land to the Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Society), a cooperative Society formed by some sitting and retired Judges of the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court. The land was originally allotted to the Society on a ground rent calculated at 8 per cent of the value of the land worked out at Rs 2280 per sq. metre but, by a letter dated January 21, 1990 (the correct date appears to be January 2, 1990), the ground rent was reduced to six and a half per cent per annum on the value of the land calculated at the rate of Rs 1050 per sq. metre. A writ petition was filed by the Nivara Hakk Suraksha Samiti, Bombay, by way of public interest litigation, challenging the validity of the above allotment and reduction in lease rent. The High Court, after hearing contentions of both the parties, upheld the allotment but set aside the reduction of the lease rent as per the letter dated January 21, 1990. The writ petitioners before the High Court as well as the Society have preferred these petitions for special leave before us.

2. In support of his petition, Shri Sebastian, learned counsel for the writ petitioners raised four contentions:

The first contention was that the allotment of land to the Society was in violation of paragraph 11 of the guidelines issued by the government for allotment of lands in the city of Bombay for housing purposes. He pointed out that under this paragraph the Collector was required to issue public notices regarding the availability of plots for allotment for housing purposes. Clause 4 of the guidelines provided for certain rules of priority in the matter of allotment and paragraph 7 required that the comparative merits of various applicants should be examined before any allotment was made. Learned counsel submitted that the allotment to the Society was made without observing these salutary guidelines. The High Court pointed out that paragraph 11 relied upon by the learned counsel itself contains an exception that the rule regarding prior publicity will not apply in cases where one or two plots are available for disposal in isolation and held that the present case falls under this exception. Learned counsel submits that this finding of the High Court overlooks that this exception is not available in cases where, as here, a layout is prepared in accordance with the local development control rules making a number of plots available for disposal. He also submits that this was a case where more than two plots were allotted to the Society and that the exception is not attracted. So far as the first aspect is concerned, we may point out that though there is a reference to some layout, there is no material before us to conclude that a number of plots were allotted to various societies on the basis of a layout so prepared and that the allotment to the Society is not a case of allotment in isolation. Though learned counsel mentioned that allotment had been made to this Society as well as to a number of other societies of a vast area of land known as Queens Barracks, no facts were placed on record before us or before High Court in support of this contention. On the contrary the contention as urged before the High Court was only that in the present case what "had been allotted to the Society "were not just two plots but also the strip of land abutting thereon" and that, therefore, the exception does not apply. The High Court has pointed out that what was allotted to the Society was only two plots of land and that a part of abutting strip of land was allotted to the Society when it had been surrendered by a previous tenant on the land. The High Court came to the conclusion that, in the circumstances, the allotment to the Society was basically of the two plots and that the allotment of the strip of land abutting thereon did not take the case out of the exception made in Rule 11 of the guidelines. We see no reason to interfere