A person who has no direct or remote connection with a transaction cannot challenge its validity through a public interest litigation.

D. K. KAPUR, J. :- The writ petition under consideration seeks to challenge the validly of certain transactions which have resulted in a licence deed dated 11th March,1981, being granted by the New Delhi Municipal Committee to M/s. Delhi Automobile (P.) Ltd., New Delhi, for building and running a hotel on a plot situated at Barakhamba Road New Delhi. The petitioner is an erstwhile member of the Delhi Development Authority and an alderman of the Delhi Municipal Corporation. He is also a social worker and a rate-payer. He claims to have a legal right to sec that public property vested in the Union Government or the New Delhi Municipal Committee is not wastefully used to serve personal ends.

2. We issued a show cause notice on the petition and have heard learned counsel of the concerned parties. It has been stressed before us that the project of building the hotel is of an extremely urgent nature and involves the investment of large funds. We have, therefore, been called upon to decide the petition at this very stage, as otherwise, the project (even if valid) would come to disaster, because of the difficulty of continuing the same, with a petition like the present hanging over the heads of all interested parties. In these circumstances, we have heard the parties extensively at this very Stage.

3. The facts of the case are that the plot in question was placed at the disposal of the New Delhi Municipal Committee some time in 1976. This was part of a plan to redevelop an area of about 30 acres in the Barakhamba Complex. The Government had considered that at least a portion of this land should be used for constructing a 5-Star Hotel. The highest tender for this purpose was made by M/s. Delhi Automobiles (P.) Ltd. Then the area of the plot was increased to over six acres in place of 4.5 acres and the licence fee was increased to Rs. 37.78 lakhs per year. In furtherance of this, the 4th respondent, (M/s. Delhi Automobiles) deposited a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs and was to pay the balance when actual possession of the site was delivered. However, in March 1977, after the change of Government, the New Delhi Municipal Committee was informed that it should not finalise the transaction and later the allotment in favour of the New Delhi Municipal Committee was cancelled in March 1978. The amount deposited was refunded to the 4th respondent, who represented their case to the Lt. Governor and also filed a Civil Suit No.144 of 1979 in this High Court for specific performance of the contract/damages. The petitioner's case is that this acceptance of tender was not a valid and bona fide transaction. In any event, the suit in this Court resulted in a compromise which led to a new licence being granted for the same area in favour of the 4th respondent, but the licence fee has now been fixed at Rs. 1.45 crores in place of the previous amount of Rs. 37.78 lakhs annually. The petitioner has raised many different points in relation to the transaction. It has been urged that the New Delhi Municipal Committee was superseded and, therefore, the property of the Committee could not be dealt with by Shri P.N. Behl, respondent No.5 under the provisions of S.238(b) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. It is contended that no licence could be granted by the New Delhi Municipal Committee if this land belongs to the Union of India, as is contended by the respondents. Furthermore, it is contended that it was a political decision which was admitted by the 7th respondent, Shri Bhishma Narain Singh, Minister of Works and Housing in the Lok Sabha.

4. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the transaction is entirely in accordance with law and cannot be described as politically motivated. Furthermore, the locus standi of the petitioner to move the present petition has been seriously challenged.

5. Reference was made during the arguments to the judgements of the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India. AIR 1979 SC 1628 a