Judgement

1. Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. :-Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court disposing the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 styled as a "Public Interest Litigation". The order gave certain directions and nullifying certain allotments of land made in favour of respondent No. 5. In the writ petition action of the State Government of Bihar in granting appellant through its Director Prakash Jha land pieces in the Industrial areas in Patna, Hajipur, Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi and Buxar. The writ petitioner alleged that the said Prakash Jha, Director of present appellant who was respondent No. 5 in the writ petition was given land in return of services rendered by him to help the present Chief Minister to win last assembly elections. It was alleged that the action of the Government amounted to doling out valuable State property as largess at throw away prices for political considerations.

3. The writ petition was filed, and was claimed to be, in public interest. The respondent described himself as the Chief Spokesperson of the Indian National Congress, a recognizd political party. His party contested the previous election in alliance with the party that was in power at that time. The alliance got worsted in the election and Congress party was returned as a poor fourth. Respondent No. 5 is a private limited company; it is represented through a person who is well known as a film maker but who also takes part in electoral politics. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it was stated that Prakash Jha had fought the 2004 Lok Sabha Election from the Bettiah Lok Sabha Constituency. It is further stated that in the last assembly election held in October-November, 2005 though not a candidate himself, he addressed public meetings jointly with the present Chief Minister in various parts of the State. As both the petitioner and said Prakash Jha are political persons, it is not surprising that the pleadings are heavy with political invectives.

4. In the writ petition, it was stated that the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") has given large areas of land at various places to respondent No. 5 at throwaway prices. It was further stated that allotments of land were made to respondent No. 5 without issuing any notice, inviting competitive bids, and the land areas were granted to respondent No. 5 at very cheap rates without following the established norms and procedure. According to him the market value of the said land plots was much higher. For instance, in Patliputra Industrial Area, Patna one acre land was given to respondent No. 5 for Rs. 14,65,000.00. This piece of land should have fetched the State about rupees five crores if allotments were to be made on the basis of competitive bidding. It was also stated that in a blatant show of favour, respondent No. 5 was also given the Authoritys Office building along with the land in Patliputra Industrial Area. The favour was crowned by putting a very low value for the building. It was also alleged that the action of the State Government/Authority in granting to respondent No. 5 land at different places was an act of mala fide and called for institution of criminal cases against the concerned people and an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

5. The writ petition, in brief, made three allegations. (i) land plots were given to respondent No. 5 at different places in the State without issuing any notice, inviting bids and at value far below the market price of those land plots, (ii) the allotment was made without following any norms or procedure and (iii) the action of the State Government caused heavy loss to the State; the action was based on political considerations and was, therefore, mala fide.

6. The respondents in the writ petition questioned bona fides of the writ petitioner. They took the stand that there was nothing illegal and the entir