Deepak Gupta, J.

By means of this public interest litigation, the Petitioner has sought to highlight various irregularities and criminal acts whereby shops and plots belonging to Municipal Council, Takhatpur have been alloted to Respondents No. 5 to 9 in an illegal manner and in total violation of the orders of the State Government.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 9.11.2012, Municipal Council, Takhatpur prepared a proposal for auction of shops and plots belonging to Municipal Council, Takhatpur. Pursuant to such proposal, advertisement were issued in a regional daily newspaper called 'Deshbandhu'. Auction was conducted and plots and shops were allotted to the highest bidders. Thereafter, approval of the State Government was sought but the Director, Urban Administration did not accept the proposal and after due consideration, the same was rejected on 27.02.2013. Thereafter, vide an undated note which is on file, it was shown that the proposal had been accepted by the State Government. This note-sheet reads as follows:

^^Hkw[k.M uhykeh Lohd`fr gsrq 'kklu dks Hkstk x;k Fkk ijUrq 'kklu }kjk mDr uhykeh dks vekU; dj fn;k x;k gSA vr% ifj"kn dks tkudkjh nsus gsrq vkns'kkFkZ izLrqrA

lgh@&

mijksDrkuqlkj mDr Hkw[k.M uhykeh izdj.k 'kklu }kjk vekU; dj fn;k x;k gSA vr% tkudkjh izLrqrA

vkns'kkFkZ

lgh@&

ifj"kn esa j[ksa**

3. In this note, in the word ^vekU;^ the first letter ^v^ was deleted showing it as ^ekU;* which means that the proposal has been approved and accepted by the State Government. Thereafter, this proposal was put up and approved on 24.02.2014 and then the lease deeds were executed by the Municipal Council, in favour of Respondents No. 5 to 8. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed.

4. We had issued notice of this writ petition. We had, after hearing the parties, passed the following order on 17.01.2017:

"Reply has not been filed by State or the Municipal Council, Takhatpur. It is stated by counsel for the parties that they are not controverting the factual averments made in the writ petition.

Shri Sunil Otwani, counsel for the Respondent No. 12 submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of Respondents No. 4 and 10 also and shall be filing Vakalatnama on their behalf. He states that the Municipal Council has instituted a suit for cancellation of the lease deed.

In the present case, prima facie we are of the view that the lease deed is based on fraud. The property in question were auctioned and proposal was sent to the State Government for approval. The State Government rejected the proposal of the Municipal Council vide letter dated 27.02.2013. Thereafter, a note was prepared in which first it was mentioned that the State Government had rejected the proposal of the Municipal Council but later on the first letter of the word "amanya" was scored out and it was read as "manya" meaning that there was an approval of the State Government.

The Secretary of the Municipal Council, Takhatpur shall file an affidavit within a period of one week from today stating who has signed this note on behalf of the Municipal Council. He shall give the complete details and also inform us whether this person is still working in Municipal Council, Takhatpur and if he is not working there, the Secretary shall inform us where he is working presently.

The Respondent-allottees have not filed their replies though one year has elapsed.

At the request of learned counsel for the Respondents, one week further time is granted to file reply. We make it clear that we will not grant any further time to file reply. In case, no reply is filed, we shall proceed to decide the case on the basis of averments made in the petition.

In the meantime, the Respondents are restrained from making any further development in the plots allotted to them.

List the matter on 24.01.2017."

5. Today, reply has been filed by all the Respondents except the State and Respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 has been served but is not represented. We have considered the replies and