JUDGMENT :

R.P. Dholaria, J.

The present petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation is filed by the petitioners praying for the following relief’s.

"(A) issue a Writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.6.2012 passed by Respondent No. 3 by holding that the Resolution dated 20.06.2012 cannot be applied retrospectively.

(B) declare that act on the part of Respondent No. 2 amending the Clause 1 of the old Resolution dated 20.06.2012 suffers from vice of favouritism and further be pleased to declare that the benefit contemplated under Rule 5(7) of Central Special Economic Zone, 2006 cannot be applied in case of Respondent No.4.

(C) Be pleased to declare that the Respondent No.1 Development Commissioner has no power to opine on the applicability of the Land Revenue Code and not competent to restrain the Competent Local Authority from taking any action under their jurisdiction.

(D) During the pendency and final disposal of this Petition, the implementation and execution of the Order dated 28.06.2012 may kindly be stayed.

(E) xxx xxx xxx"

2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent No.4 is a developer of notified SEZ (Special Economic Zone) located at and in the name of "Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone" and as such enjoying the status of developer in Taluka Mundra, District Kutch. The respondent No.4, to establish the Project, applied for allotment of lands out of total 17 villages initially by applications dated 14.7.1999 and 3.8.1998 and initially, 734 acres and 00 gunthas of lands were allotted from 17 villages including the village of the petitioners. It appears that by different orders, the lands have been allotted to respondent No.4 and possession thereof was handed over to respondent No.4 under Section 60 of the Land Revenue Code. It appears that thereafter, respondent No.4 - developer subsequently merged into Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone and, therefore, the change was allowed by respondent No.2 by letter dated 12.1.2009 following to which an application was moved by respondent No.4 to the Collector seeking necessary change in the Company's name. Pursuant to the application as aforesaid moved by respondent No. 4, necessary orders allowing the changes were passed in all the matters, i.e. allotment orders at Annexure-B of the compilation. As per the conditions of the order passed by respondent No.3, respondent No.4 was required to complete the development work within a period of three years on the given lands, however, respondent No.4 could not even start the work within this period. Hence, as per the case of the petitioners, it was a breach of condition No.8 of the order dated 15.07.2005.

2.1. It is further case of the petitioners that in spite of taking action for breach of condition, surprisingly, respondent No.3 enhanced the time limit in favour of respondent No. 4 which is in gross violation of condition No.8 of the order dated 15.07.2005 and also in violation of mandate of Government Resolution No.3907-2621-8 dated 27.02.2008, because when the said resolution came into force, respondent No.4 had already violated condition No.8 of the allotment order dated 15.07.2005. He had even not initiated the construction activities uptil 1st September, 2008 which is reflected in the extension order dated 01.09.2008. It is averred that, therefore, respondent No.3 ought to have taken action under resolution dated 27.02.2008, but instead of taking action for breach, surprisingly, the time was extended by giving relaxation in condition No.8 of the allotment order dated 15.07.2005. It appears that thereafter, respondent No.3 issued show cause notice 5.3.2011 to respondent No.4 for breach of condition of resolution dated 27.02.2008 calling for explanation as to why the pieces of lands on which the construction work is not carried out should not be forfeited to the Government without any encum