The judgment emphasized the importance of genuine PILs, limitations of judicial review in policy decisions, and the principle of delay and laches in PIL cases.

1. In the public interest litigation petition, the petitioner who claims himself to be a public spirited individual inter alia seeks a direction to respondent No. 1 to invite bids for the Ropeway project with the lease rent payable at the prevailing rates and also seeks direction to respondent No. 1 not to proceed in furtherance of the agreement dated 5/6/2008 as the same has rendered commercially unviable for the respondent No. 1 and the public at large. The petitioner also seeks a direction to respondents to conduct an enquiry against the erring officers in the department of respondent No. 1, who are responsible for mismanaging the public properties on account of their vested interest.

2. Facts giving rise to this petition, briefly stated, are that a tender was invited by respondent No.1, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, pursuant to which, respondent No. 4 submitted its bid. The bid submitted by respondent No. 4 was accepted. Thereupon an agreement was executed on 5/6/2008 for construction of Ropeway project from the base point Phoolbag Station to landing station Gwalior Fort and to operate and manage the same in pursuance to the aforesaid agreement. On 11/6/2008, possession of 4000 quare meters of land was handed over to respondent No. 4 by respondent No. 1. However, as the statutory clearances were not accorded to the respondent No. 4 for project of Ropeway in question, therefore, delay has been caused in commissioning the project. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a representation on 7/9/2015 to the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior citing reasons for recalling the agreement and for inviting fresh tenders for commissioning the Ropeway project but the same has failed to evoke any response. In the circumstances aforesaid, the petitioner has filed this petition pro bono publico.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is not aggrieved by the project for installation of Ropeway. It is further submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved with the procedural irregularities committed by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 and the delay caused in completing the project for installation of Ropeway system. It is further submitted that though the State Government had agreed to handover 4,000 suqare meters of Nazul land to respondent No. 1 but in violation of order dated 26th April, 2007 has handed over 5,000 square meters of land. It is further submitted that under clause 7 of the agreement, the respondent No. 4 has not been granted the liberty to create the mortgage in respect of the land of which the possession has been handed over to him. It is also submitted that no time limit has been fixed for completion of the project and by execution of agreement, respondent No. 4 is being given undue benefit at the cost of public exchequer. It is also submitted that the rate of rent which is prevailing presently be taken into account and the agreement be cancelled on account of non-completion of the project. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has invited attention of this Court to various clauses of the agreement, namely, clause 2, 7(a), 11 and 13 and has submitted that the respondent-Corporation has taken a categorical stand at page 7 of its return that possession of only 4,000 square meters of land has been given to respondent No. 4. It is further submitted that respondents were required to obtain statutory clearances from the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority and M.P. Pollution Control Board and since the statutory permissions were not being granted, respondent No.1, namely, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior had filed a writ petition namely W.P.No. 1914/2013, in which a Bench of this Court passed interim order on 30/04/2015 directing the department of Archaeological Survey of India to decide the application submitted by the Corporation in accordance with law. In pursuance of the direction issued by this Court on 30/4/2015, the Archaeological Surve