Common Judgment: (Smt T. Meena Kumari, J.)

Challenging the order dated 01-05-2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, partly allowing writ petition No. 2085 of 2007, which was filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent therein in its letter No. 205/AE/PC/2005 dated 2-2-2007, terminating the Joint Development Agreement of the petitioner contained in the Agreement dated 8-2-2006 relating to development of Ac.35-05 of land in Sy.No. 1009/1/(P) situated at Kukatpally village, and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary and illegal and further to direct the respondents herein to abide by the terms and conditions contained in the agreement dated 8-2-2006 and thereby enabling the petitioner to execute the project in terms of the said agreement on payment of total development fees as provided by schedule IV of the Agreement relating to development of Ac. 35-05 land in Sy. No.1009/1/(P) of Kukatpally village, these appeals are filed.

2. Since these two appeals arise out of a single judgment in the writ petition, and the question is common, we dispose of these two appeals together by a common judgment.

3. The appellant in W.A. No. 526 of 2008 is M/s. SITCO (Swarnandhra JMII Integrated Township Development Company) Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Chief Operating Officer and Director, is the writ petitioner and the respondents herein the A. P. Housing Board rep. by its Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, respondents in the writ petition. The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants in W.A.No. 847 of 2008 and the writ petitioner is respondent. For convenient sake, the parties are hereinafter referred to with their original status as arrayed in the writ petition.

4. The writ petitioner questioned the action of the 1st respondent through its impugned letter No. 205/AE/PC/2005, dated 2nd February 2007 terminating the Joint Development Agreement dated 8th February 2006 for development of land admeasuring about Ac 35.05 gts., in Survey No. 1009/1 situated at Kukatpalli village and Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary and for a direction to the respondents to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement dated. 8-2-2006 enabling the writ petitioner to execute the project in terms of the said agreement.

5. The case of the writ petitioner was that it is a Joint Sector company promoted by the first respondent A.P. Housing Board and M/s. IJM (India) Infrastructure Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 on the share holding basis and the share of the petitioner company is 51%, whereas the 1st respondent Housing Board has got 49% share, that the 1st respondent-Board, which is the owner of the above said land of Ac 35.05 gts had decided to develop the same by constructing residential and commercial space. That being so, the petitioner company, which is already executing another project with the 1st respondent-Board on another parcel of land, offered and submitted its suo motu proposals and an undertaking dated. 26-10-2005 to the Housing Board for the development of the said residential and commercial space. It had offered developmental fee for the development and undertook to pay process fee getting for said residential commercial space. Having received the said proposals and suo motu undertaking, the first respondent-Housing Board has invited bids from prospective bidders under the Swiss Challenge Process with a view to derive market driven price as against the price offered by the petitioner-company i.e., M/s. SITCO (Swarnandhra IJMII Integrated Township Development Company) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘SITCO’), which is called as original proponent and the first respondent Board as the State Agency. It is also agreed by the petitioner company to match the offer of the top rank bidder and pay the entire development fee in five instalments. In pursuance of said agreement, the petitioner company had paid first instalment ag