( 1 ) ONE M. T. Mariswamy Gowda and nine others have filed this PIL stating that the Indian Red Cross Society ('society' for short) is a Society created by the IRCS Act, 1920 ('act' for short ). It has been constituted to achieve the noble goal of serving the sick, wounded and other people in need of medical and nursing care. It is stated that the petitioners are life members of the Society. It is stated that the third respondent has invited tenders as per Annexure-C, dated 4th December, 2000 to develop the plot bearing No. 26, Race Course Road, Bangalore, on lease basis and that on account of high-handedness of the Managing Body and in an arbitrary manner the property is being alienated to a private party causing enormous loss to the Society. It is further stated that pursuant to the tender, four tenderers were called but without giving opportunity to the other three tenderers for negotiation, the 3rd respondent has granted lease in favour of 4th respondent for a period of 85 years. Hence, they have challenged the same praying to issue direction to the 3rd respondent not to enforce or act upon Rule 2 (a) of the Rules framed by the Managing Body for administration of the State branch and further to declare that the resolution of the Tender Committee dated 27-1-2001 vide Annexure-E is illegal, unconstitutional and unenforceable.

( 2 ) IN response to the notice, the 3rd respondent has filed a detailed statement of objections denying the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that the petition is misconceived and it has been filed at the instance of the 10th petitioner-KP. Aiyappa, with the ulterior intention of stifling and interfering with the activities of a body constituted under the Statute. It is also stated that the 10th petitioner is a member of the 3rd respondent-Society as well as a member of the Building Sub-Committee and was present in the meeting where appropriate decisions were taken and as he failed to have his views accepted by others has filed this pil and the same is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

( 3 ) THE 4th respondent-M/s. Esteemed Developers has also filed its statement of objections denying the allegations as alleged. It is stated that this PIL is not maintainable and the petitioners cannot agitate the issue of a purely commercial transaction in the garb of PIL. It is also stated that in response to the Tender Notification advertised on 4th december, 2000 in 'deccan Herald' for developing plot bearing No. 26, race Course Road, Bangalore, the tender was submitted and after attending the various meetings, the Tender Committee has agreed to the proposal made by it.

( 4 ) THE main contention of Sri C. M. Monnappa, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that Rule 2 (a) of the Rules framed by the Managing body for the administration of the State branch gives unbridled power to the Managing Body to deal with the property of the Society in any manner, which is against the very scheme and purpose of the Act and therefore the same is liable to be declared as illegal and unconstitutional. It is contended that the Society purchased the disputed property on 9-9-1960 and it consists of an area of 1,684. 60 sq. mts. A two storeyed building was constructed and the 1st floor of the said building was given on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/ -. The same was demolished in november 1999 and after demolition, the property was kept vacant for more than 20 months. The action of demolition and keeping the same vacant, however, was not placed before the General Body Meeting and it is clear that the 3rd respondent was not functioning in compliance to its aims and objects. Thereafter, a notification was issued on 4th December, 2000 to develop the said plot and a meeting was held on 27-1-2001 wherein the Tender Committee of the Society without negotiations with other tenderers accepted the tender of 4th respondent-M/s. Esteem Developers and has caused loss to the Society.

( 5 ) TO this, Sri A. N. Jayaram,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document