The document dated 6.5.1994 was held to be a license, and the clause for renewal did not confer an indefeasible right on the petitioners. The doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply in this case. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the notification for change in land use was not ab initio void.

Alok Aradhe, J.

1. The Petitioners by way of this petition, inter alia seek quashment of the notification dated 19.11.2003 (Annexure P-28) in respect of change of land use of the land in question as well as the order dated 23.9.2003 (Annexure P-25) passed by the Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment Department by which the Indore Development Authority has been directed to invite the tenders afresh. The Petitioners also seek a declaration to the effect that the notification dated 19.11.2003 retaining the land use as it was originally designated and declared in the master plan of 1975-1991 is ab initio void. The Petitioner have further prayed for a direction to the Respondents to ignore the order dated 23.9.2003 (Annexure P-25) passed by the Principal Secretary while considering the application for renewal, dated 9.2.2010 submitted by the Petitioners. The Petitioners also seek a direction to the Indore Development Authority to issue the licence to them to run the amusement park. The Petitioners have also sought a direction to the Respondents to consider and decide the application dated 29.12.2000 (Annexure P-15) for construction of second phase of the amusement park.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the writ petition, it is necessary to refer to relevant facts which are stated infra. The Petitioners No. 1 is a company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 whereas the Petitioners No. 2, is its Managing Director. The Petitioners No. 1 company has been constituted and incorporated for the sole purpose of setting up an amusement park in the State of M.P. and particularly at Indore. The Respondent No. 3, Indore Development Authority is a body incorporated under Section 38 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Act'). The Respondent No. 3 authority by a resolution dated 6.10.1987 resolved to install a children amusement centre on an area admeasuring approximately 7 to 8 acres on commercial land comprised in Scheme No. 54 of the authority which forms part of the land admeasuring 17.931 hectares, on the pattern of 'Appu Ghar' in New Delhi. The Respondent No. 3 authority with a view to implement the aforesaid resolution, invited tenders on 26.11.1991 vide an advertisement. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement the Petitioners as well as four other tenderers submitted their tenders. The tenders were opened on 24.11.1992.

3. As per the facts set forth in the petition, the Petitioners No. 1 company was found to be only qualified, eligible and successful tenderer-fulfilling all the norms and conditions laid down by the Respondent No. 3 authority. However., the Respondent No. 3 authority delayed the acceptance of the Petitioners' tender on flimsy grounds and for extraneous considerations. In the circumstances aforesaid, the Petitioners No. 1 approached this Court by filing a writ petition, namely, M.P. No. 313/1992 which was allowed vide order dated 23.3.1994 (Annexure P-12) by Indore Bench of this Court and the Respondent authority was directed to accept the tender of the Petitioners company. In compliance of the aforesaid direction issued by Indore Bench of this Court the Petitioners No. 1 company was allotted 7.66 acres of land for establishment of amusement centre. It is the case of the Petitioners that a document though styled as licence deed (Annexure P-13) which in fact for all intents and purposes was a lease deed in law was executed between the parties on 6.5.1994. As per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid deed, the land was initially let out to the Petitioner company for a period of fifteen years with a provision for. further-renewal of the term by fifteen years by enhancement of the licence fee by 40% and thereafter on such rate -and percentage as may be mutually agreed upon and decided by the parties as provided in Clause 8 of the deed. The Petitioners have stated in the writ petition that the land use of