BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY vs. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LIMITED

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2116­2128/2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 326­338/2020) Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor  Area Planning Authority & Anr.    …Appellant(s) Versus Nandi Infrastructure Corridor  Enterprise Limited & Ors.           ...Respondent(s) With CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2129­2141/2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3166­3178/2020) J U D G M E N T A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. These   appeals   filed   by   Bangalore   Mysore   Infrastructure 1 2 Corridor Area Planning Authority   and the State of Karnataka are   directed   against   the   common   judgment   and   order   dated Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.19 15:37:08 IST Reason: 1 For short, “the Planning Authority” 2 For short, “the State” 2 3 15.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition Nos. 16576­16577/2015 and 18481­18491/2015 (GM­RES), whereby the High Court quashed the communication bearing   No.   BMICAPA/339/Praa.Pra.Pa./1541/2011­12   dated 7.2.2015   issued   by   the   Planning   Authority   rejecting   the application made by the respondent No. 1 – Nandi Infrastructure 4 Corridor   Enterprise   Limited   and   respondent   No.   2   ­   Nandi 5^,6 Economic   Corridor   Enterprises   Limited ,   dated   5.5.2012,   for permission   to   develop   a   group   housing   scheme   under   the 7 Framework   Agreement   dated   3.4.1997   in   different   survey numbers at Kommagatta village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk (at interchanges 5/7 of peripheral road) covering 42 acres 30 guntas  of  land.    The  High  Court additionally  directed  the Planning   Authority   to   issue   Commencement   Certificate   to   the Project Proponents in terms of application dated 5.5.2012, within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the High Court’s order. 3 For short, “the High Court” 4 For short, “NICE” 5 For short, “NECE” 6 NICE and NECE are jointly referred to as “the Project Proponents”, for short 7 For short, “the FWA” 3 2. This   is   the   fifth   round   of   litigation   pertaining   to   the 8 Integrated Infrastructure Corridor and Finance Project   situated between   Bangalore   and   Mysore,   Karnataka,   consisting   of residential, industrial and commercial facilities, such as, among other   things,   self­sustaining   Townships,   expressways,   utilities and amenities including power plants, industrial plants, water treatment   plants   and   other   infrastructural   developments,   as more specifically described in the Infrastructure Corridor Project 9 Technical Report  dated August, 1995, as amended. The first round of litigation was in the form of a public 3. interest litigation filed by H.T. Somashekar Reddy before the High Court, questioning the requirement of land for the Project as per the  FWA  for   development   of   industrial  infrastructure   facilities (residential, commercial, industrial etc.) and to quash the FWA besides directing an enquiry to be conducted by Central Bureau 10 of Investigation .   That challenge was rejected by the Division Bench   of   the   High   Court   vide   judgment   and   order   dated 11 21.9.1998 in Writ Petition No. 29221/1997  and which decision 8 For short, “the IICFP” or “the Project” 9 For short, “the PTR” 10 For short, “the CBI” 11 Reported as H.T. Somashekar Reddy vs. Government of Karnataka & Anr., 1998 SCC Online Kar 609 4 came to be affirmed by this Court on 26.3.1999 in SLP(C) No. 4922/1999, dismissing the said special leave petition  in limine .   4. The second round of litigation was at the instance of J.C. Madhuswamy   and   Srirama   Reddy,   again   a   public   interest litigation to question the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State for implementation of the Project.  The main grouse in this petition was about excess land being acquired for real estate purpose   near   Bangalore   at   interchange   areas   to   pass   on   the benefit   to   the   Project   Proponents   and   illegal   sale   of   land   for construction of Bangalore Exhibition Centre.  The group of writ petitions   raising   aforementioned   challenge   being   Writ   Petition Nos.   45334/2004   (GM­RES­PIL),   45386/2004   (PIL­LA­KIADB) and 48981/2004 (GM­RES­PIL) came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment and order dated 3.5.2005,   resulting   in   dismissal   of   stated   writ   petitions   and issuance of a direction to the State to continue to implement the Project.   That decision was affirmed by this Court in   State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. All India Manufacturers Organisation 12 .   & Ors. 12 (2006) 4 SCC 683 5 5. The third round of litigation was at the instance of one M. Nagabhushana, challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated for implementation of the Project.  That challenge was rejected by the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   in   Writ   Appeal   No. 1192/2007 vide judgment and order dated 23.7.2010.  The said proceedings culminated with the decision of this Court in   M. 13 .   Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. 6. The fourth round of litigation was initiated by Abraham T.J. in reference to allegations of illegality and offences committed under   the   Prevention   of   Corruption   Act   in   the   course   of implementation   of   the   Project.     That   culminated   with   the dismissal of SLP(Crl.) No. 397/2017 vide order dated 5.9.2018 and R.P.(Crl.) 647/2018 in the dismissed SLP vide order dated 11.12.2018 by this Court. The   present  (fifth)   round   of   litigation,   however   is   by   the 7. Project Proponents themselves, who had applied to the Planning Authority   for   grant   of   permission   for   construction   of   group housing scheme at the stated location(s).  That permission having been rejected on 7.2.2015, subject writ petitions were filed before 13 (2011) 3 SCC 408 6 the High Court, which have been disposed of by the common judgment and order dated 15.10.2019 of the Division Bench, in the following terms: ­ “ORDER (i)    Writ petitions are allowed. (ii) Communication   bearing   No.   BMICAPA/339/Praa. Pra. Pa/1541/20 11­12 dated 07.02.2015 (Annexure­A) issued   by   first   respondent   to   the   petitioner   is   hereby quashed. (iii) A   writ   of   mandamus   is   issued   directing   first respondent to issue commencement certificate as sought for   by   the   petitioner   in   its   application   bearing   No. NECE//05/170   dated   05.05.2012   (Annexure­G) expeditiously and at any rate, within an outer limit of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iv) Costs made easy.” 8. Considering the fact that this is the fifth round of litigation before this  Court and  that the  importance  of the Project has already been taken note of in the earlier decisions, we deem it apposite to confine to the factual matrix essential to answer the matters in issue in reference to the relief granted by the High Court vide impugned judgment. 9. Shorn of unnecessary details, the State and the NICE had executed the FWA on 3.4.1997, setting out various terms for the purposes of developing the proposed infrastructure corridor.  The 7 FWA was followed by supplementary agreements dated 6.10.1999 and   31.3.2000   between   the   same   parties.     Besides   the supplementary agreements, a Tripartite Agreement was executed between the State, NICE and NECE on 9.8.2002.   The FWA delineates the location(s)/areas where the five self­ 10. sustaining   Townships   were   to   be   set   up.     The   subsequent agreements between the State and the Project Proponents do not alter   the   substance   of   that   dispensation.     The   FWA   makes reference to provisions in the PTR in respect of certain matters. 14 Indeed, the  Outline Development Plan /Master Plan was 11. prepared by the Planning Authority for the new planning area on 12.2.2004 and had received approval of the State.  However, the ODP/Master Plan was not intended to materially change or alter the location(s) for Townships specified in the FWA.   12. The State in exercise of its powers under the Karnataka 15 Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 , made amendments to the Zonal Regulations of ODP/Master Plan of various towns and cities   permitting   the   single   plot   usage   for   residential   purpose subject to certain conditions vide notification dated 10.3.2006.   14 For short, “the ODP” 15 For short, “the KTCP Act” 8 13. In the backdrop of the stated agreements, ODP/Master Plan and the amendment to Zonal Regulations of ODP/Master Plan, the Project Proponents submitted an application on 6.1.2012 to the Planning Authority for sanction of group housing scheme in 53 acres 5 guntas of land, which included lands transferred to the   Project   Proponents   under   sale   deeds   and   notified   under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 16 1966 .   Later   on,   the   Project   Proponents   submitted   modified 14. development plan on 5.5.2012 for permission to set up group housing scheme in 42 acres 30 guntas of land by excluding the lands in respect of which no sale deed was executed in their favour.  The Planning Authority vide letter dated 28.5.2012 called upon   the   Project   Proponents   to   furnish   certain   documents, namely,   sketches,   No   Objection   Certificates   (NOCs),   detailed project report etc., since in its view, the application submitted by the   Project   Proponents   was   defective   in   that   regard.     The Planning Authority also moved a proposal to place the matter for approval before the High­Level/Empowered Committee.   16 For short, “the KIADA Act” 9 15. The   Project   Proponents   submitted   the   clarifications   and documents   in   support   of   the   modified   development   plan   vide communication   dated   6.6.2012   and   5.7.2012.     The   Planning Authority, however, vide letter dated 17.7.2012 called upon the Project   Proponents   to   furnish   more   documents   i.e.   RTCs, clarification pertaining to the possession over the proposed land and NOC for water supply in support of their application.   The Project Proponents claimed to have submitted NOC received from the   Karnataka   Fire   and   Emergency   Services   Department   on 10.9.2012.   th 16. The Planning Authority in its 34  General Meeting convened on   12.9.2012   resolved   that   the   application   of   the   Project Proponents   be   placed   before   the   High­Level/Empowered Committee for decision.  As a consequence of this resolution, the Planning   Authority   vide   letter   dated   3.11.2012   directed   the Project Proponents to stop work on proposed lands till a decision was   taken   by   the   High­Level/Empowered   Committee,   having noticed that some unauthorised road construction activity was being   carried   out   by   the   Project   Proponents.     The   Planning Authority   had   thus   kept   the   modified   development   plan 10 submitted by the Project Proponents in abeyance till the decision of the High­Level/Empowered Committee.   17. Once   again,   the   Planning   Authority   vide   letter   dated 15.1.2013 directed the Project Proponents to stop unauthorised work   of   construction   of   road,   laying   of   water   pipeline   and electricity   cables   in   the   concerned   area.     In   response,   on 23.3.2013,   the   Project   Proponents   requested   the   Planning Authority   to   issue   necessary   approvals   (Commencement Certificates) against their request letters including letter dated 5.5.2012.   The Planning Authority vide letter dated 30.4.2013, informed the Project Proponents that appropriate decision would be taken on the modified development plan dated 5.5.2012 only after   the   decision   of   the   High­Level/Empowered   Committee. Accordingly, the Project Proponents were once again asked to stop all construction activities until final decision on the proposal was taken.   18. The Project Proponents then filed Writ Petition Nos. 57249­ 57250/2013 (GM­RES) and 57266­57267/2013 (GM­RES) before the   High   Court   for   quashing   of   the   decision   of   the   Planning th Authority taken in its 34   General Meeting held on 12.9.2012 11 and   instead   to   grant   approval   in   reference   to   the   modified development plan dated 5.5.2012.   The Project Proponents had also sought a declaration that the approvals were deemed to have been granted in terms of Section 15(2) of the KTCP Act and to direct the Planning Authority to forthwith issue Commencement Certificate in reference to the application dated 5.5.2012.   19. When the said writ petitions were pending, the Principal Secretary,   Public   Works,   Ports   and   Inland   Water   Transport Department of the State, vide letter dated 19.12.2013, directed the   Planning   Authority   to   await   the   decision   of   the   High­ Level/Empowered Committee constituted under the FWA before considering the request of the Project Proponents, which would involve   change   of   land   use   and   approval   of   residential developments.     On   25.6.2014,   the   Planning   Authority   issued notice   under   Section   15(4)   of   the   KTCP   Act   to   the   Project Proponents directing, inter alia, to refrain from taking up the development   works   at   the   proposed   sites   and   to   remove   the works already done and restore the land to its original form.   20. The writ petitions filed by the Project Proponents being Writ Petition   Nos.   57249­57250/2013   (GM­RES)   and   57266­ 12 57267/2013 (GM­RES) came to be disposed of on 16.12.2014 recording the statement of the counsel for the Planning Authority that   appropriate   decision   would   be   taken   on   the   modified development   plan   dated   5.5.2012   submitted   by   the   Project Proponents expeditiously.  The High Court directed the Planning Authority   to   send   appropriate   communication   to   the   Project Proponents by 15.3.2015.   21. Before the decision was taken by the Planning Authority, the Project Proponents submitted their response to the notice dated 25.6.2014 issued by the Planning Authority under Section 15(4) of the KTCP Act, on 6.1.2015.  The Planning Authority took decision   on   7.2.2015   on   the   application   filed   by   the   Project Proponents dated 5.5.2012 regarding the modified plan for group housing scheme.  The Planning Authority rejected that proposal, for   the   reasons   noted   in   the   communication   dated   7.2.2015, which reads thus: ­ “BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY SECOND FLOOR, GATE NO.4, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,  BANGALORE­560001  TEL:080­22353976  FAX: 080­ 22389519 No BMICAPA/339/CC/1541/201 1­12  Date: 07.02.2015 To,  13 Managing Director M/s. Nandi Economic: Corridor Enterprises Limited.  No.1, Midford House,  M.G. Road, Bangalore Sir,  Sub: Regarding your application for plan approval for group   housing   in   Sy.   Nos.   17(P),   18,   19,   20/1,   20/3, 20/4,   21/1   (P),   21/2A1   (P),   21/2A2(P),   21/2B(P), 21/2C(P), 21/2D(P) and 21/2E(P), totally measuring 53 Acres­05 Gunte of Kommaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.   Ref. 1. Order   of   the   Hon’ble   in   W.P.   No.57249­ 50/2013 (GM.­RES) and 57266­67/2013 (GM­2013 dated 16.12.2014) 2. Your application dated 05.05.2012 3. Your re­application dated 06.01.2015 On   verification   of   your   application   and   documents following drawback are observed; 1) In the master plan approved by the Government, the proposed   land   was   earmarked   for   transporl   and communication, park and open space, public and semi public   zone.   There   is   no   opportunity   for   residential building in the said zone. In the plan submitted, lands are not reserved for park and open space.  2) As   per   Form­15   (EC)   submitted   shows   that development   agreement   is   entered   with   Umang   Reality Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the said agreement not submitted.  3) As per sale deed submitted, the proposed lands were acquired for Stage­1 of Infrastructure Project. (as per FWA phase­1   included   9.8   k.m.   link   road   and   3   k.m.   of peripheral road). Further as per sale deed lands has to be returned to the Government after 30 years and there is no clarity in the said document about permitting for building plan in the land. In this regard we have written letter to PWD   for   information   and   they   have   not   provided   any information till now. That apart, the proposed land is not transferred to you for group housing purpose.  4) As per village map, there is a stream (halla) passing through   east   to   west   in   the   land.   But   in   the   survey sketch/building plan submitted only portion of the hall is shown.  14 5) Construction   of   Unauthorized   road   in   the   lands   in question has been observed In view of the above, it is hereby informed that, your proposal is rejected.  Yours sincerely,  Additional Director, Town and Country Planning and Member Secretary,                BMICAPA, Bangalore.” The above communication was assailed by the Project Proponents before the High Court and it was prayed that a writ be issued directing   the   Planning   Authority   to   grant   Commencement Certificate for the proposed group housing scheme.   Those writ petitions   [Writ   Petition   Nos.   16576­16577/2015   and   18481­ 18491/2015 (GM­RES)] have been disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned judgment.   The High Court, after considering the stand taken by both 22. the   sides,   formulated   three   points/questions   for   its consideration, as noted in the impugned judgment, which read thus: ­ “9….. (1) Whether writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of same not being maintainable as it relates to discharge   of   contractual   obligations   between   the petitioner and third respondent? OR 15 Whether writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of FWA providing for redressal of grievances of petitioner to be routed through High Level Committee? (2) Whether   communication   dated   07.02.2015 ­Annexure­A   issued   by   first   respondent   rejecting   the prayer of the petitioner for approval of development plan for group housing in the Sy.Nos. indicated therein is liable to be upheld or quashed? (3) What order?” At the outset, the High Court, while considering point No. 1, dealt with the argument regarding maintainability of writ petitions.  It referred   to   the   decisions   of   this   Court   in   Tata   Cellular   vs. 17 Union   of   India ,   Raunaq   International   Ltd.   vs.   IVR 18 Construction   Ltd.   &   Ors. ,   Association   of   Registration 19   and   Plates   vs.   Union   of   India   &   Ors. Michigan   Rubber 20 (India) Limited vs. State of Karnataka & Ors . .  Thereafter, the High Court proceeded to observe as follows: ­ ‘‘15. At   the   outset   it   requires   to   be   noticed   that petitioners are seeking for quashing of the communication dated   07.02.2015   (Annexure­A)   addressed   to   the petitioners whereunder the approval of the plan for Group Housing   which   requires   to   be   approved   by   BMIC­first respondent   has   been   rejected.   A   perusal   of   the   said communication would clearly disclose that nowhere first respondent has either contended or whispered about non consideration   of   the   application   submitted   by   the petitioners on the ground of petitioners having sought for enforcement of a contractual obligation or on the ground FWA providing for mechanism to enable the petitioners to 17 (1994) 6 SCC 651 18 (1999) 1 SCC 492 19 (2005) 1 SCC 679 20 (2012) 8 SCC 216 16 work out their right as per said mechanism. On the other hand,   first   respondent   by   virtue   of   the   said   authority being the planning authority empowered under the FWA to   grant   approval,   has   examined   the   prayer   of   the petitioners for approval of the plan for group housing and has   rejected   the   same   by   assigning   five   (5)   specific reasons. It is nowhere stated said application of petitioner is   not   being   considered   on   account   of   petitioner   is attempting   to   enforce   a   contractual   obligation   or   said application   has   to   be   placed   before   High   Level/Power Committee.   Thus,   prima   facie   contention   of   third respondent with regard to maintainability of the writ petitions cannot be accepted . 16.  In   fact,   petitioners   herein   had   approached   this Court in W.P. No. 57429­50/2013 and connected matters at the first instance when first respondent had resolved to refer   said   application   to   High   Level   Committee whereunder this Court had disposed of the writ petition by order dated 16.12.2014 based on stand by counsel appearing for BMIC therein undertaking to consider the application   on   merits.   In   said   proceedings   third respondent   herein   was   a   party   and   in   fact,   no statement of objections had been filed by the third respondent raising contention now raised and thereby it   would   clearly   indicate   that   third   respondent   is attempting to improvise its stand stage by stage and step by step . 17.  In the instant case, petitioner has impugned the communication   dated   07.02.2005   (Annexure­A) whereunder application filed by the petitioner for approval of Group Housing has been rejected and said right of the petitioner to seek approval stems out of the FWA entered into   between   the   petitioner   and   GOK   and   the consequential   agreements.   It   is   agreed   between   the parties that under clause 3.1.1 it is the obligation of the GOK   to   use   its   best   efforts   to   grant   and   cause   its Governmental Instrumentalities, Government of India and its instrumentalities to grant, all approvals required in connection   with   the   Infrastructure   Corridor   project including the approvals indicated in Schedule II of FWA. The approval under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1961   has   been   referred   at   Sl.   No.   15   of   Schedule   II. Respondents   ­   1   and   2   being   the   statutory   authority conferred with the power under the Karnataka Town and Country   Planning   Act   to   accord   approval   for   the "Proposed Development Plan" submitted by the petitioner, 17 they   are   required   to   examine   the   application   filed   by petitioner for Group Housing and approve or reject said plan in accordance with the statutory provisions. In fact, petitioner   by   its   communication   dated   03.07.2014 (Annexure­H13)   addressed   to   first   respondent   has contended that on account of development plan for Group Housing having not been approved, Section 15 which is a deeming provision under the Town and Country Planning Act,   1961   would   be   applicable.   In   other   words, petitioner   has   sought   for   enforcement   of   statutory right.   As   such,   the   contention   of   respondents   that petitioner   has   to   avail   the   remedy   available   under clause 4.1.2 of FWA cannot be accepted . At the cost of repetition,   it   requires   to   be   noticed   that   when   the application of the petitioner for grant of approval of Group Housing   was   not   disposed   of   by   first   respondent, petitioner had approached this Court in W.P. Nos. 57249­ 250/2013   and   57266­267/2013   which   came   to   be disposed   of   by   the   Division   Bench   by   order   dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure­J) in the light of statement made by   the   Planning   Authority   namely,   first   respondent herein. The statement so made which came to be recorded by the Division Bench in the said writ petitions reads: "2.   Before   the   petitions   could   be   heard  on merits, a statement is proposed to be made for BMICAPA, which being acceptable to the petitioners, the petitions are to be disposed of in terms of the statement as under: "The applications dated 05.05.2012 and 21.04.2013 (both at Annexure­F in each set of petitions) shall be considered by the BMICAPA within a period of three months and the decisions thereon shall be communicated to the petitioners by the BMICAPA on or before 15.03.2015". 3. Accordingly,   making the above statement, the   order   of   the   Court,   by   consent ,   the petitions   are   disposed   of   in   the   aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. Since none of   the   contentions   of   the   parties   are considered or pressed at this stage, the rights and contentions of the parties remain open to be agitated, if need be, in future."              (emphasis supplied by us) 18 18. In the said writ petitions, GOK was also represented by the Special Government Advocate and the statement made   by   the   first   respondent   in   the   said   proceedings would clearly indicate that application of the petitioner was required to be considered under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and as such, it came to be considered on merits and has been rejected   on   five   (5)   grounds   as   already   noticed hereinabove.   Hence,   these   writ   petitions   being dismissed on the ground of petitioner having remedy under   the   FWA   does   not   arise.   Petitioner   having sought   to   enforce   statutory   right   as   well   as   the impugned communication stemming out of FWA being challenged   on   the   ground   of   misuse   of   statutory powers   by   the   respondent   ­   authorities,   contention raised with regard to maintainability of writ petitions is   to   be   necessarily   held   as   untenable   and   said contention is liable to be rejected . 19.  It would not be out of context to state that the very same   petitioner   had   sought   for   issuance   of commencement   certificate   for   residential   layout   plan relating to land measuring 14 acres 35 guntas in Sy. No. 27/2A of Kommaghatta village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and 17 acres 39 guntas in Sy. Nos. 164/4(P), 164/5,   165P,   166P,   167/1P,   168(P),   241(P),   242(P), 247(P), 248(P), 252(P) of Kengeri village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk enclosing therewith layout plan. Since portions of land in Sy. No. 27/2A measuring 7.27 acres was reflected in ODP as Park, Open space/Traffic and transportation/agricultural, petitioners herein sought for   change   of   land   use   and   as   such,   petitioners   had requested   first   respondent   ­   authority   herein   to recommend to the Government for change of land use. This request was turned down by first respondent by its decision   taken   at   its   33rd   General   Meeting   held   on 29.05.2012 and first respondent had resolved to place the matter before High Level/Empowered Committee. Being aggrieved by said decision, petitioner herein approached this Court  in W.P.  Nos. 37298­299/2013 and Division Bench by order dated 22.11.2013 allowed the said writ petition on the ground first respondent being the Planning Authority is bound to take its decision in accordance with Section 14A of the Act. Further direction was also issued to first respondent to consider the request of petitioner for change   of   land   use   strictly   in   accordance   with   the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. Similar direction had 19 also been issued to first respondent by Division Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos. 37300­301/2013 by order dated 22.11.2013. In the said writ petitions, State namely, third respondent   herein   had   been   arrayed   as   second respondent and was represented by learned Advocate and in the said writ petitions, there was no plea raised with regard to maintainability of said writ petitions.  As such, third respondent herein cannot be permitted to raise said ground in these writ petitions by attempting to improve   its   case   step   by   step.   Even   otherwise,   on merits also, we have held said contention not being tenable for the reasons already recorded. 20.  That   apart,   contract   in   question   also   having element of public interest, we are of the considered view that writ petitions are maintainable and as such, contention   raised   regarding   non­maintainability   of ’’ writ petitions stands rejected. (emphasis supplied) The High Court then considered point No. 2 and by referring to clause 1.1.3 in the Tripartite Agreement dated 9.8.2002, held that it was a clear admission of the State that stage­1 of the infrastructure corridor would include 10 (ten) interchanges and Townships.  On that basis, the High Court held that the Planning Authority   ought   not   to   entertain   any   doubt   regarding   the   Townships being established at the interchanges.   Further, the High Court in the first round of litigation in  H.T. Somashekar   (supra) had held that Townships can be established by Reddy the Project Proponents under the FWA.   It extracted paragraph 66 of the said decision in support thereof.  The High Court then 20 examined   the   first   ground   on   which   the   application   dated 5.5.2012 was rejected by the Planning Authority and observed thus: ­ “23. The   Outline   Development   Plan   (for   short   'ODP') came to be approved by the Government of Karnataka on 12.02.2002 as per Annexures­L and L­1 respectively and same would indicate that area proposed by the petitioner for   putting   up   residential   buildings   would   fall   within yellow zone/residential zone and thereby plan submitted by petitioner is in compliance with the zoning regulations and permitted under the ODP. In fact, plan submitted by petitioner   along   with   application   dated   05.05.2012,   as rightly   pointed   out   by   Sri.   D.L.N.   Rao,   learned   Senior Counsel   appearing   for   petitioner   when   juxtapositioned with   the   ODP,   it   would   clearly   demonstrate   that   plan submitted   by   the   petitioner   is   in   conformity   with   the zoning   regulations.   In   fact,   Hon'ble   Apex   Court   by   its order dated 03.11.2009 passed in C.P. No. 96/2007 has directed that project should be completed as per the ODP dated 12.02.2004. 24.  Under FWA Clauses 3.1.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.5 and 3.2.6 it is incumbent upon Government of Karnataka (for short 'GOK')   to   make   best   efforts   to   grant   and   cause   its instrumentalities   all   approvals   required   in   connection with project including approvals specified under Schedule 2 of the agreement whereunder it is clearly specified that "petitioner   would   receive   the   requisite   permissions, approvals, sanctions and/or licences...." under the Acts and Rules of GOI and GOK as specified thereunder. This would also include granting  approval under   Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.   In fact, under Clause 3.2.3 it is agreed that GOK would not restrict the use of land in any way and petitioner would have freedom and discretion to develop and use the land as generally contemplated by the agreement and it would also be incumbent upon the GOK to zone and re­zone and caused to be done in a manner consistent with use   in   the   infrastructure   project   as   contemplated under   the   agreement   and   under   Clause   3.2.5   it   is understood   by   GOK  that   development   of   townships would have many components and take many forms 21 including   the   industries,   businesses   and   services . contemplated in Schedule 4 of FWA 25. In the light of above findings, contention raised by   the   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for respondent No. 3 with regard to petitioners could not have approached the first respondent directly for plan approval on the ground that all approvals required in connection   with   the   infrastructure   corridor   project had   to   be   granted   by   the   High   Level   Empowered committee consisting of members from each affected ministries of GOK, would not hold water and complete answer to such technical plea being raised has been laid to rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered on 20.04.2006 in the matter of STATE OF KARNATAKA   AND   OTHERS   vs.   ALL   INDIA MANUFACTURERS ORGANIZATION reported in (2006) 4   SCC   683   whereunder   it   has   been   held   to   the following effect: "In the future also, we make it clear that while   the   State   Government   and   its instrumentalities are entitled to exercise their   contractual   rights   under   the   FWA, they   must   do   so   fairly,   reasonably   and without   malafides;   in   the   event  they   do not  do  so,   the   Court   will   be   entitled  to interfere with the same." Hence,   first   ground   on   which   plan approval/permission   has   been   refused   cannot   be sustained   and   it   is   liable   to   be   rejected   and accordingly it stands rejected. ’’ (emphasis supplied) 23. The High Court then examined the second ground in the impugned communication dated 7.2.2015 and observed that the document was never demanded by the Planning Authority.   24. While   dealing   with   the   third   ground,   in   the   impugned communication, it noted that the entire cost of acquisition of the 22 land in question and implementation of the project, was to be borne and carried out by the Project Proponents.  The State, on issuing   notification   under   Section   4A(1)   of   the   KTCP   Act   on 13.7.1999, had notified the appellant No. 1 (in C.A. Nos. 2116­ 2128/2020)   to   be   a   separate   Planning   Authority   for   the infrastructure   corridor   in   question.     And   that   Authority   had prepared ODP/Master Plan for the new planning area.   Relying on the observations in  All India Manufacturers Organisation (supra), the High Court opined that the lands have been acquired for the Project which is an integrated infrastructure project and not   limited   only   to   construction   of   road   as   indicated   in   the impugned communication.  It once again relied on clause 1.1.3 of the   Tripartite   Agreement   and   also   the   communication   dated 19.12.2013 and noted that it was not open to the Cabinet to unilaterally cancel the Tripartite Agreement dated 9.8.2002.   It then noticed the amendment of Section 2(7a) of the KIADA Act, which defines “industrial infrastructural facilities”.  It then moved over to consider the issue about return of the subject lands to the State Government after 30 years and for that, referred to the recitals in the sale deeds.  The High Court held that it is agreed between   the   parties   that   what   is   to   be   transferred   back   is 23 “Transferred   Toll   Road   Assets”,   as   defined   in   the   FWA   on completion of the concession period.  As regards the “Transferred Township Assets”, clause 7.2 of the FWA was adverted to and it concluded as follows: ­ ‘‘37.  A   plain   reading   of   expression   "Transferred   Toll Road Assets", "Transferred Township Assets", along with Clause 6.8 of FWA, it would indicate that petitioner has to   transfer   to   GOK   at   the   end   of   concession   period, "Transferred Toll Road Assets" upon terms and conditions mutually agreed by the parties as set forth in Clause 6.8. Thus, there is no ad­idem between the parties with regard   to   townships   being   transferred   by   the petitioner   to   GOK .   Under   Schedule   5   it   is   more specifically indicated as to the assets, which are to be transferred in the township by the petitioner to the GOK. It reads: "SCHEDULE 5 Transferred Township Assets 1. Right of way relating to the public roads in the Townships other than the Toll Road 2. Buildings solely housing municipal offices 3.   Fire   Station   and   related   fire   fighting equipment 4. Police Station 5. Employment of such employee employed in connection   with   the   civil   operation   of   the Township as mutually agreed 6. Such other assets as may be mutually agreed between GOK and the Company" Thus, what is agreed under FWA and supplemental agreements by petitioner with GOK is to transfer the assets of townships as specified in Schedule ­ 5 of FWA and nothing new can be added or read into it . 38.  In fact, contention now raised in the present writ petition   was   also   the   plea   put   forward   by   State Government before the Division Bench in the matter of 24 J.C. MADHUSWAMY AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA   AND   OTHERS   in   W.P.   No.   45386/2004 (GM­PIL),   which   came   to   be   considered   and   rejected. Same was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. ALL INDIA   MANUFACTURERS   ORGANISATION   reported   in (2006) 4 SCC 683 whereunder Hon'ble Apex Court has negatived   said   contention   as   already   observed   herein above. 39.  Thus, a combined reading of the above clauses in   the   FWA   and   the   agreements   would   clearly indicate as to what assets would revert back to the Government and the developments that would take place in the subject lands other than what has been mentioned in clause 6.8.3 which would revert back to the State Government. As such, plea now raised by third respondent with regard to township established by the petitioner is required to be transferred to GOK ” cannot be accepted and it stands rejected. (emphasis supplied) The   High   Court   thereafter   adverted   to   the   ODP/Master   Plan prepared by the Planning Authority and opined that it defines the developmental activities to be carried out at the interchanges. After extracting the relevant portion thereof and adverting to the correspondence between the Public Works Department (PWD) of the State and the Planning Authority and the discussion during th the  34   General  Meeting   of   the   Planning   Authority,   the   High Court   concluded   that   interchange   areas   at   link   road   and peripheral road are permitted for residential developments as per the FWA.   It then went on to consider the argument of “single plot” and held that the plan submitted by the Project Proponents 25 was in respect of one single plot, wherein they had proposed to develop group housing block wise.   The High Court was also impressed by the argument of the Project Proponents that the Department of Town and Country Planning in respect of these very   Project   Proponents   had   granted   approval   for   residential layout in Survey No. 15/1 (part), 16 & 18 (part) measuring 15 acres   38½   guntas   at   Varashansandra   Village,   Kengeri   Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk for allotting sites to land losers followed by   issuance   of   Commencement   Certificate   dated   7.3.2014. Therefore, the High Court went on to observe that it would not lie in   the   mouth   of   the   Planning   Authority   to   approbate   and reprobate   on   the   same   subject  matter.     The   High  Court  also adverted to the permissions accorded by the Planning Authority for   setting   up   housing   scheme   by   private   persons   nearby interchanges.  After referring to those instances, the High Court concluded  that the  Planning Authority was adopting policy of pick and choose for grant of approval or sanction.   As   regards   the   fourth   ground   in   the   impugned 25. communication, the same was also overturned on the finding that the Authority committed factual error in that regard.   The 26 High   Court   opined   that   the   plan   submitted   by   the   Project Proponents did not violate any condition.   26. Resultantly, the High Court was pleased to set aside the impugned   communication   dated   7.2.2015   rejecting   the application preferred by the Project Proponents for permission to construct group housing scheme at the location(s) referred to in the   application   dated   5.5.2012   and   issued   a   direction   to   the Planning Authority to grant Commencement Certificate as sought by the Project Proponents. 27. Feeling aggrieved, the Planning Authority and the State have filed separate appeals by special leave, assailing the impugned judgment.     The   thrust   of   assail   is   that   the   High   Court   has completely   undermined   the   scheme   of   the   FWA,   which   was binding on the Project Proponents and the State.   The Project Proponents could develop the project only as per the specified components   of   the   Project.     The   FWA   was   founded   on   the extensive exercise of holistic development of the area as recorded in   the   PTR.     The   theme   of   the   PTR   was   duly   deliberated   at different levels and eventually an informed decision was taken by the Authority to implement the report (PTR) subject to certain 27 changes and modifications.   Consistent with such decision, the FWA was executed between the Project Proponents and the State. The terms and conditions set out in the FWA, are self­contained. The   parties   (Project   Proponents   and   the   State)   are   bound   to comply with the same in its letter and spirit.  The essence of the FWA can be traced to the recitals therein.  To wit, the Project was necessitated to achieve an orderly development of Bangalore as a major industrial, commercial and residential city in the manner prescribed.     The   contours   of   development   work   have   been delineated   in   such   a   manner   so   as   to   ensure   amongst   other things,   self­sustaining   townships,   expressways,   utilities   and amenities,   including   power   plants,   industrial   plants,   water treatment   plants   and   other   infrastructural   developments,   as referred to in the PTR dated August, 1995, as amended.   The development work was to promote  industrial, commercial and economic activities, so as to generate new job opportunities for the residents in and around the infrastructure corridor, promote tourism,   decongest   traffic   in   Bangalore   and   Mysore,   ensure smooth   and   safer   traffic   between   Bangalore   and   Mysore   and provide a world class expressway between the two cities.   The utility of the land that would be offered by the State for the 28 Project was clearly defined and prioritised.   The Project was to consist   of   a   limited­access   toll   expressway;   electric   power transmission   line;   water   pipeline;   and   fibre   optic telecommunications cabling including construction of southern section of the Bangalore City Outer Peripheral Road connecting National Highway (NH)­7 and National Highway (NH)­4.   As a limited­access expressway with a continuous barrier on either side,   the   road   would   prevent   ribbon   development,   increase efficiency of individual travel and cargo movement, and improve vehicle safety.   Originally, seven “Township” areas in the entire project   were   earmarked   and   clearly   identified,   but   after   due consideration of all aspects, it was decided to reduce the number of “Townships” to only five, identified as Townships 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 in the PTR.  The “possible business and services” of the Project have been articulated in Schedule 4 of the FWA to include real estate and housing as one of the activities.   According to the appellants, the proposal submitted by the 28. Project   Proponents   was   for   development   of   group   housing scheme.   That was not in accord with the usage of the land specified in the FWA and the relevant specifications in the PTR. 29 The PTR as well as FWA recognise development of “Townships” and not group housing scheme as such.   The two concepts are materially different.   Further, the subject proposal to construct group housing scheme was in area other than the identified five Townships in the FWA and the PTR, which was not permissible in terms of the FWA.  Besides, the proposal submitted by the Project Proponents vide communication dated 5.5.2012 to develop group housing scheme in the stated area also did not include other components  required to be constructed and provided for in the Townships.  Being a deviation of the FWA, it was essential for the Project   Proponents   to   first   take   permission   of   the   State,   as provided in the FWA, which could be granted on the basis of the opinion   of   the   “Empowered   Committee”.     Until   grant   of   such permission, it was not open to the Project Proponents to maintain any   application   or   submit   proposal   directly   to   the   Planning Authority merely on the basis of the ODP/Master Plan and the municipal laws concerning the town planning scheme under the KTCP Act.  It is urged that the High Court posed wrong questions to itself and proceeded to answer the same, that too in a manner which   is   untenable   and   founded   on   erroneous   assumptions. Despite the limited relief claimed by the Project Proponents, the 30 High Court went ahead with the issue of validity of the Cabinet decision of the State in respect of the tripartite agreement.  That was uncalled for.   Similarly, it proceeded to answer the issue regarding   the   “single   plot”   which   ought   to   have   been   left   for consideration of the competent authority.   29. In   substance,   the   argument   of   the   appellant   is   that   in absence of prior permission of the State regarding deviation from the FWA, it was not open to the Planning Authority to process the application/proposal   under   consideration.     Nor   such   an application   could   be   treated   as   a   valid   application   by   the Planning Authority, for the purpose of Section 15 of the KTCP Act regarding   deemed   permission.     It   is   urged   that   the   proposal submitted by the Project Proponents, if accepted, would result in allowing development on the toll road or at toll road interchanges, which  cannot   be   made   part  of   the   Townships   in   view   of   the express provision in that regard in the FWA.  In case the Project Proponents were not in agreement with the stipulations in the FWA or the conditions specified by the competent authority of the State,   they   could   resort   to   remedy   of   resolution   of   disputes provided for in the FWA itself, before the Committee or by way of 31 arbitration, as the case may be.  However, the Project Proponents could not have directly approached the Planning Authority for grant   of   permission   and   the   High   Court   for   issue   of   writ   of mandamus against the Planning Authority.   In other words, no relief could be granted to the Project Proponents unless the State had agreed to the deviation.  Significantly, the State had advised the Planning Authority vide letter dated 19.12.2013 pointing out that, before taking any decision with respect to change in land use and approving residential complex, decision of Empowered Committee constituted under the FWA be obtained.  It is urged that   the   Project   Proponents   were   conscious   about   their obligations.   That is manifest from the letter sent by NICE to Executive   Member   of   the   Karnataka   Industrial   Development 21 Board , dated 6.1.1998, including from the stand taken by them before the High Court in different proceedings.  It is also urged that the PTR and the FWA clearly provide for the sequence of implementation and execution of the Project and it is open to the State to insist for execution of Project strictly in that order.  The Project   Proponents   cannot   be   allowed   to   disregard   these obligations.   21 For short, “the KIADB” 32 30. It is further urged that the logic invoked by the High Court is, to say the least, unstatable.   Inasmuch as, merely because “Housing” is mentioned in “Real Estate” column in Schedule 4, it would not follow that the other components of the “Townships” specified in the FWA and the PTR are dispensed with.   On the other hand, the FWA, if read as a whole alongwith the relevant stipulations in PTR referred to in FWA, it would be evident that the Project  ought  to  be  implemented  in  the   manner  specified therein   including   the   establishment   of   Townships.     Housing scheme would only be one of the components of the “Townships” to   be   constructed   at   the   designated   location   of   the   five Townships.  That the lands on which development was proposed were allotted to the Project Proponents for implementation of the Project only as per the FWA with obligation to retransfer the “Transferred Toll Road Assets” back to the State.  This has been completely misinterpreted by the High Court.  Further, the High Court was more impressed by the fact that in the earlier writ petition filed by the Project Proponents, the Planning Authority had   agreed   to   consider   the   modified   proposal   dated   5.5.2012 submitted by the Project Proponents.  The assurance so given by the   Planning   Authority   cannot   be   the   basis   to   disregard   the 33 binding obligations of the Project Proponents flowing from the FWA regarding the manner in which the Project should be taken forward.   The   appellants   urge   that   the   fact   that   permissions   were 31. granted by the Planning Authority in respect of the neighbouring lands   of   private   persons   for   construction   of   group   housing complex or for that matter given to the Project Proponents in respect of some other area, cannot be the basis to disregard the obligations flowing from the FWA and the PTR.   The housing scheme to be constructed by the Project Proponents must be in the   designated   areas/location(s)   specified   as   “Townships”   and only in the manner specified in the FWA and the PTR.  For, the FWA refers to the PTR in some measure, and by such reference the stipulations and specifications regarding the execution of the Project given in the PTR would get incorporated in the FWA to that extent.  The Project Proponents are obliged to adhere to all such stipulations.   32. Concededly, the right of the Project Proponents flows from the FWA and is circumscribed by the same.  If proposed deviation is to be ignored, the whole purpose for which the Project has 34 been conceived, will be defeated.  It would not be a development, as planned in the PTR and approved in the FWA.  It is, therefore, not open to the Project Proponents to rely on general provisions applicable to other lands in the neighbourhood not covered by the FWA.  It is urged that it is essential to keep in mind that the private land is made available to the Project Proponents by the State after acquiring it from land owners for implementation and execution of the Project.  The regional or the zonal plan showing the entire area as yellow zone being residential, would, therefore, be of no avail to the Project Proponents.  The Project Proponents cannot be heard to say that unless they are permitted to develop group   housing   scheme,   it   would   not   be   possible   for   them   to finance the Project, inasmuch as, the manner of financing the Project and generation of revenue is already specified in the FWA. It   is   urged   that   in   any   case,   the   High   Court   exceeded   its jurisdiction in issuing mandamus against the Planning Authority, directing to issue Commencement Certificate, as sought by the Project Proponents vide modified proposal dated 5.5.2012. 33. The Project Proponents, on the other hand, would reiterate the stand taken by them before the High Court and which had 35 found   favour   with   the   High   Court.     According   to   the   Project Proponents, the High Court in the facts of the present case, was justified in not only quashing the communication issued by the Planning   Authority,   dated   7.2.2015,   but   also   directing   the Planning   Authority   to   issue   Commencement   Certificate,   as prayed   in   terms   of   the   modified   proposal   dated   5.5.2012. According to them, the State authorities including the Planning Authority   have   been   obstructing   the   implementation   of   the Project, which has been approved long back and elucidated in the FWA dated 3.4.1997.   The group housing scheme is one of the activities clearly permitted by the FWA.  And being a permissible activity,   it   was   unnecessary   for   the   Project   Proponents   to approach the State or the Empowered Committee, as the case may be.  As a matter of fact, the Empowered Committee is not a statutory Committee.   It is only a facilitation Committee under the FWA to ensure smooth implementation of the Project.  In any case,   the   four   grounds   articulated   in   the   impugned communication dated 7.2.2015 issued by the Planning Authority, make no reference to the requirement of obtaining prior approval 36 from the State or the Empowered Committee.  The State cannot be heard to raise any objection in that regard in the present proceedings,   as   it   did   not   raise   the   same   in   the   earlier   writ petition filed by the Project Proponents bearing Writ Petition Nos. 57249­57250/2013   (GM­RES)   and   57266­57267/2013   (GM­ RES), to which it was made party.  In fact, an order was passed on the basis of the assurance given by the Planning Authority that it would consider the modified proposal submitted by the Project Proponents on 5.5.2012 within specified time.  According to   the   Project   Proponents,   the   reasons   recorded   by   the   High Court are in the context of the arguments canvassed before it and invited by the parties. 34. It is urged that the entire action of the Planning Authority and the stand taken by the State is replete with mala fides.  This Court   even   on   the   earlier   occasion,   had   taken   notice   of   the obstructions   created   by   the   State   authorities   in   the implementation   of   the   Project,   as   can   be   discerned   from   the observations in  All India Manufacturers Organisation  (supra). It is urged that the Project Proponents were not invoking the 37 deeming   provision,   but   have   pursued   grounds   to   assail   the reasons   stated   by   the   Planning   Authority   in   the   impugned communication dated 7.2.2015.   The High Court dealt with all the   four   grounds   noted   by   the   Planning   Authority   in   the impugned communication and justly concluded that the same were   unsustainable.     Having   said   that,   the   High   Court   was justified in issuing direction to the Planning Authority for grant of Commencement Certificate, as it was satisfied that no fruitful purpose   would   have   been   served   by   relegating   the   Project Proponents before the same (Planning) Authority.   For, it was determined to create obstruction in the implementation of the Project.   It is urged that the Planning Authority having issued ODP/Master Plan, was obliged to process the modified proposal submitted by the Project Proponents on that basis.  The land use categorised in ODP/Master Plan refers to outer peripheral road including the land reserved for interchanges.   The High Court had considered this aspect and accepted the stand of the Project Proponents that it is clear from perusal of the ODP/Master Plan that   the   land   in   question   can   be   used   for   various   purposes including   residential,   commercial,   industrial   developments, which would be in consonance with clause 3.2.3 of the FWA.  It is 38 urged that the Project Proponents had agreed to undertake and carry   on   the   construction   of   group   housing   scheme   in   strict compliance of the ODP/Master Plan.  The Project Proponents are also relying on the argument of the Advocate General of the State of Karnataka, reproduced in paragraph 41 of the judgment of the High   Court   in   Writ   Petition   No.   3438/2010   dated   15.6.2011, wherein it was pleaded on behalf of the State that the PTR was only a proposal and the ODP­2004 was the approved alignment of  the   road.     It  is   urged   that   the   State   having   approved   the ODP/Master Plan, was bound to give effect thereto and cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate relying on the PTR/FWA.  It is   contended   that   this   Court   in   All   India   Manufacturers Organisation  (supra) had negatived the submission of the State that 5119.37 acres of land was required for the toll road in the PTR, however, in the FWA, the area was enhanced to 6999 acres. It is urged that the PTR is not a sacrosanct document and the parties accepted various modifications to the same.   It is also urged that the State cannot be permitted to raise the same plea, which would be otherwise hit by principles of constructive   res judicata .     According   to   the   Project   Proponents,   the   issue 39 regarding the development of land reserved for “Townships” has attained finality and cannot be raised again in light of the dictum in     (supra)   including All   India   Manufacturers   Organisation dismissal of review petition raising the same ground now urged by the State.  Further, there is no infirmity in the view taken by the High Court, much less regarding the direction issued vide the impugned judgment. 35. We have heard Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the appellant­Planning Authority, Mr. Chandra Uday Singh, learned  senior   counsel  for   the   State   and   Dr.   Abhishek   Manu Singhvi and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the Project Proponents. 36. Considering the rival submissions, we are inclined to accept the argument of the appellants that the High Court in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment (reproduced in paragraph 22 of this judgment), posed wrong questions to itself and that led to the erroneous   and   untenable   conclusion   deduced   by   it.     The fundamental   issue   is:   whether   the   subject   modified   plan submitted   by   the   Project   Proponents   directly   to   the   Planning Authority for approval is replete with deviations and/or violation 40 of the stipulations and specifications in the FWA?   In that, the FWA had circumscribed the user of the land in terms of the location(s), as well as, the area thereof for implementation of the Project.  If so, was it imperative for the Project Proponents under the FWA to obtain prior approval of the State including that of the Empowered Committee? And if that was declined or granted in part, should they take recourse to remedy of resolution of disputes or through arbitration mechanism, as provided in the FWA itself?  If all these questions were to be answered in favour of the Project Proponents, only then the Court could be called upon to examine the justness of the four reasons recorded by the Planning Authority.  The High Court, in our opinion, hastened to examine   the   justness   of   the   reasons   given   by   the   Planning Authority   for   rejecting   the   proposal,   vide   the   impugned communication dated 7.2.2015. 37. For answering the matters in issue in proper perspective, it would   be   essential   to   first   understand   the   purpose   of   the Integrated   Infrastructure   Corridor   and   Finance   Project   (the Project).  It was conceived and formalised to construct a privately financed   infrastructure   corridor   and   seven   new   Townships 41 between Bangalore city and Mysore city in Karnataka State.  The Project also included construction of the southern section of the Bangalore   City   Outer   Peripheral   Road.     The   infrastructure corridor was to include a modern, four­lane (extendable to six­ lane)   limited   access   expressway;   potable   water,   sewage treatment, and electric power transmission facilities; and fibre optic communication cables.  The southern section of the Outer Peripheral Road was to link the infrastructure corridor with the region’s entire highway network.   The report (PTR) plainly sets out   that   the   seven   new   Townships   were   to   be   organic,   self­ sufficient communities, each with its own unique economic base and directly served by the infrastructure corridor.  All this would fulfil   the   National   and   State   policy   goals   for   population dispersion,   infrastructure   modernisation   and   economic development,   and   inevitably,   economic   and   infrastructure privatisation.  As a limited­access expressway with a continuous barrier on either side, the road was intended to prevent ribbon development, increase efficiency of individual travel and cargo movement, and improve vehicle safety.  It also notes that it was intended to provide access to existing and proposed Townships, for which nine (9) interchanges were to be constructed along the 42 length of the expressway.  Location(s) of the interchanges, as well as, the “Townships” area were clearly demarcated in the PTR. The relevant extract from the PTR reads thus: ­ “1. The intersection of the expressway with the outer peripheral road 2. The Corporate Counter (Township Site #1) 3. The   Commercial   Center   (Township   Site   #2) and Bidadi 4. The Farming Market Center (Township Site #3), the   Industrial   Center   (Township   Site   #4),   the Heritage Center (Township Site #5), Ramanagaram and Channapatna 5. Maddur 6. Mandya 7. The Agricultural Center (Township Site #6) and Arakere 8. The   Eco­Tourism   Center   (Township   Site   #7) and Shrirangapatta 9. The   intersection   of   the   Expressway   with   the Mysore Ring Road The expressway will bypass congested village roadways, eliminating conflict between inter­city and local traffic. By limiting access to the expressway and charging tolls, local traffic will be discouraged from using the corridor. As a result,   the   corridor   will   significantly   reduce   travel   time between Bangalore and Mysore to about one and one­half hours. The design of the expressway will, to the greatest extent possible, maintain the travel patterns of the rural populace. For the most part, local cross roads, although separate from the expressway, will be maintained through the construction of bridges and culverts. Where crossing the expressway with a local roadway or cattle path is not feasible,   local   access   roads   will   connect   to   nearby roadways   that   do   cross   the   corridor.   Bridges   and 43 underpasses for local roads, and most of the large culverts will serve as cattle crossings during the dry season.  The expressway and its facilities will be constructed of the best   materials   and   implemented   using   state­of­the­art highway   engineering   and   construction   techniques.   The expressway   will   be   constructed   to   high   standards   of roadway safety with two marked lanes in each direction and divided by a wide landscaped median. The roadway alignment   and   pavement   surface   will   be   designed   to ensure   safe   travel   and   a   smooth   ride.   To   achieve   this objective, the expressway will be designed using innovative materials and construction techniques such as jointless cement   concrete   pavement.   All   bridges   will   be   but   of modern materials. The roadway surface will be graded to prevent   water   pooling   and   curves   will   be   banked   to enhance driving safety.” (emphasis supplied) The map of the concerned area clearly specified the location(s) of the interchanges and the Townships, forming part of the PTR.  As regards the Townships development, the relevant portion of the PTR reads thus: ­ “ TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY The Consortium proposes to design, acquire land for, and construct seven new townships as part of the Bangalore­ Mysore Infrastructure Corridor.   The townships will be developed entirely by the Consortium, including the provision   of   infrastructure   municipal   services,   and recreation   facilities.   The   creation   of   the   new townships   will   provide   significant   benefits   to Bangalore, Mysore, the investment corridor, and the entire state of Karnataka. The townships are being planned to be compatible with their environments. They will strengthen the rural agricultural economies of the area and maintain the stability of existing rural settlements.  Each of the proposed townships has a unique identity determined   by   its   economic   base .   The   urban   form, 44 transportation network, and municipal services serve and are   guided   by   the   basic   purpose   and   theme   of   the community. The proposed townships are as follows: Corporate   Center:   A   home   for   corporate headquarters,   offices   and   research   and development facilities.  Industrial   Center:   A   self­sufficient community   dedicated   to   clear manufacturing   and   industrial   research   and development.  Agricultural   Center:   A   town   centered   on   a university   and   institute   dedicated   to agricultural research and its application. Eco­tourism Center: An environmental park and cultural arts center which will become a destination for Indians and foreign travellers who   wish   to   learn   about   the   region’s environmental   resources,   fine   and performing arts, and heritage crafts.  Heritage   Center:   A   pilgrimage   site   with conference and traditional healing facilities.  Commercial Center: A residential suburb of Bangalore   with   retail,   light   industry,   and municipal support services.  Farming   and   Market   Center:   A   farming community with a market center for the sale of locally grown produce.  Beyond these themes, the communities share a common planning  philosophy. The towns must be modern, but accommodate traditional Karnataka lifestyles, customs, and   cultural   values.   Transportation   access   and   utility infrastructure   will   be   provided   to   a   greater   ultimate development   capacity   than   will   be   initially   needed   for those areas to be created by the Consortium.  This excess capacity   will   permit   the   new   townships   to accommodate future growth with minimal disruption. 45 Each   township   has   a   primary   town   center   with supporting   neighbourhood   centers.   The   residential areas   are   planned   to   include   a   range   of   housing models and are situated so that the walking distances to work, school, or shopping are not greater than ½ mile (0.9 km). Elementary schools are located in each neighbourhood.   Parks   and   recreation   facilities   are generously   allocated   to   neighborhoods   and   town centers. Transportation access to the expressway and internal vehicle and pedestrian circulation patterns are considered carefully . …” (emphasis supplied) The other crucial aspect predicated in the PTR is the manner in which   the   Project   needs   to   be   implemented   and   prioritized including the Townships.  It reads thus: ­ PROJECT SCHEDULING AND PHASING: The   current   project   schedule   and   phasing   plan   is responsive to the financial plan of the Consortium, and it meets   the   transportation   and   township   development needs of the region. A master schedule illustrating the Bangalore­Mysore   Infrastructure   Corridor   Project elements and their interrelationships is presented on the following page.    The   project   schedule   and   phasing   plan   has   been developed   that   sequentially   constructs   the   expressway elements   of   the   project.   Township   development   is phased to financially support the construction of the Expressway   and   the   southern   section   of   the   Outer Peripheral   Road .   The   project   phasing   can   be summarised as follows: Construction   of   the   Southern   section   of   the Outer peripheral Road around Bangalore City between years 1­3.  Construction   of   the   Bangalore   link   Road between years 1­3  46 Construction   of   the   northern   section   of   the Expressway (0­55 km) between years 2­4.  Construction   of   the   southern   section   of   the Expressway and the Mysore Link Road between years 4­6.  Construction   of   the   Bangalore   City   Elevated Link Road Extension between years 7­10.  Construction of the townships would begin in year 2 and extend over a period of 12­15 years.  Development in each of the townships would be concurrent with the construction of the community and municipal services. This will enable   the   financing   of   these   township elements   and   allow   the   consortium   to manage their cash flow.  Once construction of the various expressway elements has   been   completed,   tolled   traffic   operations   will commence.   For   example,   it   is   envisioned   that   the Southern   section   of   the   Outer   Peripheral   Road   would open for traffic operations at the end of year three. Upon completion   of   each   subsequent   expressway   section,   it would also be opened for traffic operation.” (emphasis supplied) 38. Section I of the report (PTR) deals with topics such as Socio­ Economic   Profile,   Highway   Planning   Issues,   Recommended Scheme, Traffic Data and Analysis, Engineering Design, Bridges, Initial Environmental Examination, Cost Estimate, Privatisation of Highway Projects, Appendix­I and Appendix­II.   Under topic “Recommended   Scheme”,   the   details   of   the   Expressway, Underpasses/Overpasses,   Cattle   Underpasses,   Utilities   Road, Interchanges, Service Areas, Toll Plazas, Central Administrative 47 Complex, Express Lighting, City Centre Access etc. have been duly elaborated including their exact location and other essential specifications.   The   topic   “Townships   Along   the   Corridor”   has   been 39. separately detailed in Section­II.  The relevant portion of the PTR dealing with “Townships” reads thus: ­ “ 1. TOWNSHIPS ALONG THE CORRIDOR This   part   of   the   report   deals   with   the   analysis   of developing   seven   urban   townships   with   all infrastructure and civic facilities along the Bangalore­ Mysore expressway .  Historically,   the   chieftain   from   Magadi,   Kempegowda built Bangalore during 1597 and established a few towers on   the   boundary   limits   of   Bangalore.   The   Mughals conquered it in 1687. It is said, it was sold to Chikka Devaraya in 1690 for Rupees three lakhs. It was Hyder Ali who got it as a personal jagir in 1759. However in 1791, Tippu Sultan was given suzerainty over it after the Treaty   of   Srirangapatnam.   After   the   fall   of   Tippu   at Srirangapatnam, the same was returned to the Hindu Royalty in 1799. A military cantonment of the British was established in 1809 and Bangalore later on flourished as an   administrative   centre   since   1830.   It   grew spectacularly after 1951.  1.3. The   population   of   Bangalore   was   12   lakhs during 1961 and it rose to 29 lakhs as per 1981 census. In   1981,   it   was   the   fifth   most   populated   city   in   the country and accounted for 25% of the population of the state – Hubli­Dharwad, the next urban centre accounting for a fifth of Bangalore size population.  1.4. Compared to Karnataka’s growth in population during   1981­91   which   was   20.09%,   the   growth   of population of Bangalore urban area was 59.08% during 1971­81   and   38.00%   in   1981­91   and   that   of   rural 48 Bangalore was 24.30% during 1971­81 and 14.70% in 1981­91. 1.5. As against this, Mysore with a population of 6.52 lakhs in 1991 recorded a growth of 24.97% in 1971­81 and   21.58%   in   1981­91   at   the   district   level.   Various agencies estimated the expected population of Bangalore during 2001 as 70 lakhs (Town Planning Department) and 82 lakhs (anticipated by Bangalore Water supply and sewage   Board).   The   Comprehensive   Development   Plan (CDP) 1984 for 2001 of Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) projected a population of 70.00 lakhs for Bangalore in 2001. The revised (1995) CDP for 2011 AD proposed land uses for 56,465 hac. as against 43,928 hac. During 2001. This is in addition to the green belt, surrounding the conurbation area.  1.6. The rapid increase in population necessitated a   thinking   process   to   contain   Bangalore   to   a reasonable size, assure it the desired level of civic and   social   services   to   keep   its   premier   status   and direct   additional   growth   to   alternate   places   in   a desirable manner. The acute problems of Bangalore are   increasing   level   of   pollution,   pressure   on   land, acute shortage of water, inadequate sewaging system and   lack   of   proper   sewage   treatment   and   disposal arrangements,   shortage   of   power,   shortage   of residential   accommodation,   inefficient telecommunication   system,   paucity   of   land   space within green belt etc.  1.7. Bangalore, located at an elevation of +900m is suffering for want of a good transport system, inter and intracity wise. A reliable power supply system to assure 1000mw   was   planned   as   a   part   of   Karnataka   power requirement.   Tourist   and   amusement   areas   like   T.G. Halli Reservoir, Hesarghatta Tank, Bannerghata National Park and Ramohalli Banyan Tree and Kanva Reservoir were considered, but no active steps taken. The region lacks   the   facility   of   good   environment   parks   or amusement places.  The above and many other factors indicate that there is   a   need   for   a   policy   to   establish   urban   growth centers,   with   dependable   infrastructure   and accessibility   to   the   metropolitan   area   along   a   fast 49 corridor .   Examples   of   this   nature   are   many   in Switzerland, Norway, Mourville away from Paris in France are   just   a   few   instances   of   polycentred   settlements working as countermagnets, with a strong support base. The townships along the proposed Bangalore Mysore Expressway would go a long way in reducing pressure on   Bangalore.   These   settlements   should,   however, take into account the growth pressure likely to be faced   by   them   after   a   decade   of   their   completion. Creation   of   new   settlements   is   likely   to   bring   in better   results   compared   to   improvements   and modification   or   creating   new   urban   extensions   to metropolitan   Bangalore   as   these   actions   need   to necessarily   serve   under   severe   constraints   on   the other facilities like land, transport and power . Usewise for any unit of expenditure, the efficacy of modifications will be comparatively less. The environment and purity will only reduce. But in the case of new settlements, it will be easier to achieve better results. It is, however, necessary   to   ensure   that   the   existing   structures   and balances   in   the   rural   sector   are   not   thoughtlessly disturbed;  the emphasis in the new townships should be for achieving a high degree of green and low rise and low density development.   A very important aspect is to give orientation towards . the direction in which new townships should grow Referring to Bangalore, good transport facilities towards Mysore   are   in   the   offing   which   is   a   good   boost   for industrial   and   tourism   growth.   Mysore   having   an excellent source of shelter, tourism, industry, and raw materials,   will   serve   very   well   the   purpose   of   an important supporting city (as the other end of a corridor of   development   with   other   facilities   and   settlements dispersed   judiciously   in   between).   Secondly,   there   are three medium irrigation projects near about Bangalore viz the Manchanabale Project, the lggalur project and the Arobele   project,   which   can   yield   some   water   for supporting   the   growth.   Rivers   Arakavati   Shimsa   and Cauveri are on the corridor towards Mysore. The Ground Water department ascertained that there is good ground water development possibility for making about 33,000 additional well structures in Bangalore; 41,600 in Mysore and 42,100 in Mandya. At least it indicates good ground water condition at depths ranging 50m and more. By far the climatic and physical conditions in this area are very 50 congenial, compared to some other areas in Karnataka. Therefore, it is most desirable to develop the belt as a corridor with settlements of high order of infrastructure well   connected   to   the   two   metropolitan   towns   of Bangalore and Mysore.  Selection of Townships 1.10 Estimates   indicate   that   the   population   of Bangalore   will   reach   85   lakhs   by   2011.   There   is   an absolute need to restrict the population to 70 lakhs by 2011.   Even   for   achieving   this   objective,   a   number   of measures to prepare Bangalore for sustaining a holding capacity of 70 lakhs will be required to be taken. The proposal now is an effort to absorb almost 7 to  8 lakhs population in the proposed corridor by developing seven townships   (Mandya,   Maddur,   Ramanagram   and Chanpatna shall be geared to absorb about 2.0 lakhs additional population). The balance of 6 lakh population has to be diverted across towards other countermagnets and some administrative actions taken.  1.10.2.  The selection of the seven townships and the need for land has been done by physical examination of   the   present   ground   level   conditions   and . Since an expressway is being considered, development a   comprehensive   view   has   been   taken   about   the availability of access to the corridor from the proposed townships each of which will be given an access to the expressway. 1.10.3.   Availability   of   water   is   an   important consideration. There are no water sources of perennial nature, barring Cauveri which can be tapped for water supply to these townships. Ground water conditions do indicate   the   presence   of   water   at   depths   40   to   50m between the rocks, but this is not an adequate source to sustain the nature and level of development. Even the National Water Policy hints that drinking water for urban areas shall be met from surface flows, and only in rural areas,   extensive   dependence   on   tube   wells   may   be considered.   Heavy   exploitation   of   subsoil   water   can reduce the growth of greens. The idea of bringing water from Cauveri along the expressway and supplying to the townships is the only solution. Some water to be tapped trough tube wells and water ponding by digging lakes can be only auxiliary measures.  51 1.10.4.   Efforts   are   being   made  to   avoid   acquisition   of lands   which   are   under   good   cultivation.   Such   lands which   are  good   for   agriculture   and   gardens  are  being almost avoided. Forest land is also being avoided. Since it is necessary to have one expanse of land of about 2,000 acres and more for about 1.0 lakh population (or more), search   was   made   for   presence   of   continuous   plots   of land,   as   far   as   possible,   forming   a   regular   geometric figure without wedges projecting in or out. However in a few cases, a few villages and major district roads exist on ground in the midst of such expansive areas. In such cases, the villages and road are to be integrated suitably with other planning, and some measures will have to be taken to integrate them with main area. This will be a right step to encourage the rural settlements adopting new norms of a system and not distort, or feel disparities. 1.11. The area on the corridor towards Maddur and Mandya are highly agricultural in character with existing irrigation   facilities.   It   is   for   this   reason   that   more townships are located in the first half of the corridor nearer to Bangalore and only 2 out of seven in the other half of corridor nearer Mysore .  Fig.   3.1   (Section­I)   shows   the   location   of   the townships   and   the   areas   and   the   location   of . Where the township area is away from the expressway expressway, a dedicated road with good specification is proposed to be constructed up to the expressway as a part of the township development. They will be served through the Expressway interchanges.  To avoid speculation, no survey of land has been done. Help   of   Topo   maps   has   been   taken   to   know   ground conditions. Ground conditions are further examined by limited walking along. There are some changes on ground since the last survey work was done for preparing topo maps.   Land   use   maps   of   each   township   have   been prepared to indicate the suggested breakup of areas. After the land is finally selected and ground survey done to some extent   of precision (the existing maps are to a scale of 1:50,000), the land uses firmed up and density can be finally decided with zoning and other development components like FAR, Height, Set Backs, Architectural Control etc.   52 1.14. The present comprehensive development plan for Bangalore   shows   the   following   land   use   pattern.   In addition, there is a green belt on the periphery Residential 43.16% Commercial      2.91% Industrial       6.81% Public and Open Spaces 13.79% Public and semi public   8.69% Transportation 20.72% Unclassified   3.92% 100.00% 1.15. Some townships are exclusively designed to promote   industry   and   one   for   Environment   and amusement.   The   land   use   pattern   at   city   level   in Bangalore cannot be extended for townships outside . The land use pattern in the other township areas will generally be as below.  Housing        30­50% Parks, open spaces               15­20%   ( excl.   Agr. University ) Commercial 5­10% Industrial 0­20% Roads and Utilities    20% Municipal & Institutional 5­15% Total    100% Subsequent   chapters   describe   the   concept   of township   layouts   infrastructural   services   and   the manner in which they will be designed and provided .” (emphasis supplied) The Conceptual Aspects of Townships are separately discussed as second item in Section­II, which reads thus: ­ “ 2. CONCEPTUAL ASPECTS OF TOWNSHIPS 2.1 Problems of the urban community multiply with the   increasing   complexity   of   our   age.   The   physical 53 expansion of cities is running  out of control, and the economic   and   social   consequences   command   the attention of civic leadership in Government, business and industry. The Practical limitation of the pyramidal form of the city has forced decentralization. When the congestion at the core becomes unbearable, the inner layers slip out. The present exercise is to contain this phenomenon by planning the infrastructural corridor having seven new townships to cater to the varying and complex needs of the   region,   along   the   proposed   expressway   connecting Bangalore and Mysore. These are indicated on the index map.  The new townships would be of relatively small sizes, designed   to   encourage   pedestrians   circulation   and maintain close proximity to surrounding open space . The   plans   indicate   an   abundance   of   space   flowing throughout the community. The special endeavour has been made to preserve natural wooded areas or unusual topographical   characteristics   in   all   the   towns.   The existing villages are assimilated in the overall schemes of development as they are existing on all sites. The human scale predominates in the total planning of all the new town   ships   which   are   planned   as   self­contained communities   seeking   a   balance   between   sources   of employment,   business   centres,   centre   for   fashion technology, medical and other research centres etc. are suitably   located   in   various   townships   which   are essentially   organic   elements   in   a   broad   programme   of decentralization   of   the   congested   urban   centres   of Bangalore and Mysore.  In   all   townships,   the   floor­space   required   to   be occupied by people and ground space for circulation has been carefully worked out. The emerging pattern is a balance between these elements. The high rise ‘Land   Mark’   buildings,   for   all   towns   have   been thought of essentially in the commercial sectors, to dominate the skyline and also to be seen from the Expressway .  The grid pattern is followed for roads with circles and radials in some cases. Three types of principal rights of way have been followed, the respective width being 33.0, 24.5 m and 18.00 m.  54 Each neighbourhood in the new townships has a small sub centre for shopping, a primary school, and social facilities.   The   secondary   schools   serve   several neighbourhoods .  Fig.   3.1   indicates   the   general   locations   of   the townships   along   the   proposed   Expressway   and existing Bangalore­Mysore State Highway No.17 . The existing   villages   and   towns   are   also   indicated.   The distance   in   km   is   shown   on   the   drawing   along   the alignment   of   proposed   Expressway.   There   are   five townships with in the distance of 40 kms from Bangalore and two townships in the vicinity of Mysore on either side of the Kaveri River.    assumes   great   significance   due   to   its Township   No.1 proximity to Bangalore. It is situated on either side of the Expressway   on   the   fringes   of  the  Outer   Ring   Road  of Bangalore   city.   The   nature   of   this   township   may   be roughly   identified   as   a   corporate   township   providing facilities for Research and Development, Business Centre, Hotels,   Golf   Course,   Residential,   and   related infrastructure. Some facilities from the core of the city could   be   shifted   here   in   a   planned   and   organised manner.  The   entrance   and   exit   to  the   township   is   through  an interchange and toll­booths. This is located on the west of the town. The town is provided with a Green Belt on its periphery.   Due   consideration   has   been   given   to   the ecological and environmental factors. The total area of the township is 2792 acres.  The ‘Land Mark’ buildings are proposed at appropriate locations.  The city is designed as a self­contained entity with all facilities,   including   a   hospital   and   a   college   with appropriate number of primary schools, high schools and other town requirements.  2.8 Township No. 2   is located about 10 kms from the   Bangalore   conurbation   boundary.   The   site   is proposed   to   be   developed   as   a   commercial   township, contributing to relieve the pressures of urbanization. 55 Covering an area of 1868 acres, the township is situated about 7­8 kms off the Bangalore­Mysore Expressway and 4 kms from the existing railway line and state highway No.17 to the south of the township.  The   existing   site   features   are   more   or   less   suitably modified according to the layout with an exception of a few rirulets, natural water bodies and hillocks and rocky outcrops   scattered   within   the   site   boundary.   The proposed township site is bounded by two roads leading to Bangalore from Nejjala and Bidadi towns. A number of existing   settlements   are   present   all   around   the   site boundary   especially   towards   the   south   while   two settlements fall within the site boundary.  The basic design of this township revolves around the central core. This central core is the major commercial, business, services and institutional hub of the town. The residential   area   is   distributed   all   around   this   central core.  The multifunctional central core  offers varied services, right from a commercial complex to hotel, bus terminal municipal offices, institutional and office use, hospital, and college, all located within 2 kms from the farthest point   in   the   township   and   hence   confirms   to   the standards   of   human   scale,   facilitating   use   of   non motorised form of transport.  The   road   layout   is   more   or   less   a   grid  pattern.   Each residential pocket is to be developed as a self­contained neighbourhood   with   facilities   like   school,   playground, park, dispensary, convenient shopping etc.  The environmentally friendly nature of the township is emphasized   by   developing   the   township   for   non­ motorised transport system, encompassing the existing settlements within the overall structure of the township and   provision   of   a   green   buffer   all   along   the   site boundary besides the provision of community parks and trees lining the major roads of the township.  Last   but   not   the   least   is   the   link   to   the   proposed Expressway   which   will   be   provided   through   an interchange on the expressway.  2.9 Township No. 3    xxx xxx xxx 56 2.10. Town ship No. 4   is about 36­37 kms. west of Bangalore along the proposed Expressway. The site has an   area   of   about   1660   acres   and   is   meant   for   the industrial   land   use.   It   is   intended   to   accommodate different types of plots for the various industries. A green buffer   is   maintained   all   round   the   township   and   the environmental considerations shall be well looked after. The   site   has   an   approach   from   the   Expressway.   The necessary   provision   has   also   been   maintained   for   the public and semi­public and the green areas. The town shall be designed on the lines of a modern Industrial township will all necessary trapping.  2.11. Township No. 5  is north of township no.4. This township is located near the existing Bangalore­Mysore State Highway No.17 and also near the existing Railway line.  The site of this township in on the north of the existing village   of   Archahakra   Halli,   which   is   along   the   State Highway No.17 from where an existing roadway leads to the   hinterlands.   This   road   passes   through   the   entire length of the proposed township. This proposed township has a mix of cultural and residential land use and it occupies an area of about 2700 acres. The town shall have a medical centre with a full­fledged hospital with centres for the study of various types of medical systems like Allopathy, Ayurveda etc. it will also have a centre for religious studies with subcentres for  all  world  religion and   will   accommodate   special   centre   for   the   Vedic studies. Housing also forms the major component of this township.     xxx xxx xxx Township No. 6   is in the near vicinity of Mysore City, Township No. 7 about 3 km on its outskirts and about 1 km on the north of Kaveri River. It occupies an area of 4010 acres. The township   is   designed   for   Ecotourism   and   all   facilities have been provided to meet this target.  This   is   the   township   of   contrasts.   It   will   have   an Amusement   Park,   Golf   Course   and   hotels   with   some residential   neighbourhoods.   A   town   centre   with commercial,   public   buildings   and   other   necessary infrastructure facilities is provided.  57 All   these   townships   together   provide   for   necessary infrastructure   support   required   in   this   region   for perspective requirements.  The townships will be developed in line with modern town planning   practices.   Special   consideration   should   be shown   while   detailing   open   spaces   parks   and   greens. Special attention is to be given to Agricultural Zone and the  Agriculture  University   where  uses  like  agriculture, horticulture farming, chilling centers, farm houses and accessory buildings will be planned.  Since   the   detailed   layout   and   architectural   control   & drafting zoning applicable norms is not within the scope of this report, this is not attempted; also it is an exclusive work, which has to be handled separately. However there are   certain   points   which   have   links   with   land   use planning   and   which   need   to   be   considered   in development planning. They are listed below. 1. Road   hierarchy  has   to  be  planned   to  avoid   main traffic in a subcity going through residential areas.  2. Wind Rose is to be kept in view while treating high rise buildings vs. low rise buildings.  3. Continuous   green   may   be   attempted   to   allow minimum   public   use   of   motorised   transport   – encourage cycle or pedestrian movement.  4. All high rise buildings to be on wide roads only.  5. Drainage and greens to be integrated 6. Low   rise   buildings   to   be   attempted   to   harmonize with environment  7. Energy   savings   should   be   an   important   criterion while detailing architectural plans.  8. Local zoning to ensure a low noise environment for schools, hospitals, and residences.” (emphasis supplied) 58 40. The   project   report   (PTR)   was   deliberated   and   eventually translated   into   a   formal   decision   of   the   State   with   some modifications   and   changes   to   the   recommendations   made therein.  Finally, the Framework Agreement (FWA) was executed between the State and NICE.  Even this agreement at the outset ­ in   the   recitals,   unambiguously   refers   to   the   PTR   and   the necessity to implement the Project as finally approved by the Government in larger public interest.  The relevant recitals read thus: ­ “W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS,   Bangalore   and   Mysore   are   the   fastest developing   cities   in   the   State   of   Karnataka   and   are leading   centres   for   industry,   trade   and   commerce, simultaneously attracting tourists from all over the world; WHEREAS, the traffic intensity between Bangalore and Mysore has been very high and will continue to increase with   further   growth   of   industry,   trade,   commerce   and tourism in such cities and in the State of Karnataka; WHEREAS, in order to ensure smooth and accident­ free traffic between Bangalore and Mysore, an expressway between the two cities is proposed; WHEREAS,   in   light   of   the   ever­increasing urbanisation problems and in an effort to achieve the orderly   development   of   Bangalore   as   a   major industrial commercial and residential city .  GOK has proposed   to   promote   an   integrated   infrastructure corridor   situated   between   Bangalore   and   Mysore, Karnataka,   consisting   of   residential,   industrial   and commercial facilities such as among other things, self­ sustaining   townships,   expressways,   utilities   and amenities,   including   power   plants,   industrial   plants, water   treatment   plants   and   other   infrastructural 59 developments,   as   more   specifically   described   in   the Infrastructure   Corridor   Project   Technical   Report,   (collectively,   the dated   August   1995,   as   amended “Infrastructure Corridor”); WHEREAS, GOK has been consistently attempting to attract on agreeable terms a consortium to industrially and commercially develop the Infrastructure Corridor in accordance with the vision of GOK; WHEREAS, the Kalyani Group, SAB Engineering and Construction   Inc.,   and   Vanasse   Hangen   Brustlin   Inc. (collectively, the “Consortium”) and GOK entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 20 February, 1995 relating to the further consideration of the industrial and commercial development of the Infrastructure Corridor by the Consortium (the “Memorandum of Understanding”); WHEREAS,   GOK,   upon   review,   assessment   and consideration   of   the   Infrastructure   Corridor   Project Technical Report dated August – 1995 prepared by the Consortium,   as   amended   by   the   Government   Order (defined   below)   and   the   Annexure   thereto   (the “Infrastructure   Corridor   Project   Technical   Report”)   is satisfied   that   the   interests   of   the   State   of   Karnataka would   be   best   served   if   the   Infrastructure   Corridor   is industrially and commercially developed as contemplated by the Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report inasmuch   as   such   development   would   promote industrial, commercial and economic growth in the State of Karnataka generally and in Bangalore and Mysore and the   Infrastructure   Corridor   specifically   create   new   job opportunities   for   the   residents   in   and   around   the Infrastructure   Corridor,   promote   tourism,   decongest traffic in Bangalore and Mysore, ensure smooth and safer traffic   between   Bangalore   and   Mysore   and   provide   a world­class expressway between the two cities; WHEREAS, GOK issued Order No. PWD 32 CSR 95 dated   20   November   1995   (the   “ ”) Government   Order authorizing   the   development   of   the   Infrastructure Corridor   by   the   Consortium   as   contemplated   by   the Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report; WHEREAS, GOK has consented to and acknowledged the exercise by the Company of the Consortium’s rights under   the   Memorandum   of   Understanding   and   the Government   Order   pursuant   to   a   Consent   and th Acknowledgement Agreement dated 9   September, 1996 among the GOK and the members of the Consortium;  60 WHEREAS, the Company has agreed to industrially and commercially develop the Infrastructure Corridor and finance, own and/or operate such developments in the manner contemplated by this Agreement ; WHEREAS,   under   the   above   recited   premises,   GOK has undertaken to extend to and provide the Company with   the   necessary   governmental   actions,   cooperation and assistance and grant the Company rights required for   the   industrial   and   commercial   development   of   the Infrastructure   Corridor,   including   the   services   and businesses   contemplated   in   Schedule   4,   which   GOK believes is in the best interests of the State of Karnataka and its citizens because, among other things, it will (i) promote industrial,  commercial and economic growth in the Infrastructure Corridor, the cities of Bangalore and Mysore and the State of Karnataka generally, (ii) create new  jobs, (iii) provide the State of Karnataka  a much needed world­class expressway between Bangalore and Mysore, (iv) create a counter­magnet to Bangalore city and (v) help in promotion and development of world­class tourism; and  WHEREAS, the Company will assign its rights under this Agreement to the various Project Companies, each of which   will   develop,   construct   and   finance   part   of   the Infrastructure   Corridor   Project   in   a   manner   to   be determined   by   the   Company   in   accordance   with   this Agreement;  NOW,   THEREFORE,   in   consideration   of   the   mutual premises, covenants and promises herein contained, the Company and GOK do hereby agree as follows:” (emphasis supplied) Suffice it to observe that the underlying concern of the State was about the increasing urbanisation problems and to assuage the hardship caused on that account to the general public.   The Project, as envisaged and finalised was intended to achieve the objective   of   orderly   development   of   Bangalore   as   a   major industrial,   commercial   and   residential   city.     The   Integrated 61 Infrastructure Corridor (the Project) was to consist of residential, industrial and commercial facilities, amongst other things, self­ sustaining   townships,   expressways,   utilities   and   amenities including power plants, industrial plants, water treatment plants and other infrastructural developments, as envisaged in the PTR, as amended.   The objective of the Project was also to ensure smooth and accident­free traffic between Bangalore and Mysore; to create new job opportunities for the residents in and around the Infrastructure Corridor; promote tourism; decongest traffic etc.   Notably,   the   PTR   had   suggested   creation   of   seven 41. Townships, but in the final decision, as noted in the FWA, only five Townships have been approved as part of the Project being Townships 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7.  It was a conscious decision taken by the State to have limited number of self­sustaining Townships in the entire belt, so as to fulfil the National and State policy goals of population dispersion and to ensure proper functionality in the region.    In  other   words,   the   FWA   predicates   that   the   Project Proponents will be allowed to develop only five Townships at the demarcated   locations   and   which   are   self­sustaining   with 62 sufficient infrastructure for ensuring smooth and accident­free traffic on Bangalore­Mysore Expressway stretched to about 140 kilometres.  Keeping that objective in mind, the stipulations and specifications in the FWA read with the relevant portion of the PTR will have to be examined.  There is no room for giving liberal meaning   to   the   stipulations   and   specifications   which   would inevitably  defeat and  frustrate   the   underlying  objective  of   the Project ­ of orderly development of Bangalore City and to address the ever­increasing urbanisation problems. 42. Be it noted that the FWA executed between the State and the Project Proponents delineates the nature of contract and the scope of work to be carried out by the Project Proponents, as per the terms and conditions specified therein.   It is an integrated project   not   only   for   construction   and   management   of Expressway, but also creation of Townships at the demarcated location(s) as per the specifications and area earmarked therefor. The   “Infrastructure   Corridor”   has   been   defined   as   having   the th same meaning as set forth in the recital (4  WHEREAS clause) of the FWA.   It means, collectively, the Land, the Toll Road, the Townships, the Power Plants, the Telecommunication Facilities, 63 Water Supply Facilities and the Waste Water Treatment Facilities and   other   developments,   and   the   acquisition,   design, construction, engineering, financing and implementation thereof, as referred to in the PTR.  “Townships” is, therefore, an identified and   well­defined   component   of   the   “Infrastructure   Corridor Project”.  It has been defined as follows: ­ ““ Townships ”   means   the   townships   described   as Townships 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 in the Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report which will be developed by the Company and/or the Project Companies for the industrial and   commercial   growth   and   other   development   of   the Infrastructure   Corridor,   and   the   provision   of   roads, supply of water and electricity, street lighting, sewage, conservancy   and   such   other   conveniences   and   socio­ economic infrastructure, inter alia comprising of housing schools, hospitals, shopping complexes, parks and open spaces as set forth in Schedule 4 attached hereto.” From this definition, it is amply clear that only five Townships (each   having   different   purpose   –   such   as   Corporate   Centre, Industrial   Centre,   Ecotourism   Centre,   Heritage   Centre   and Commercial Centre) have been envisaged in the Infrastructure Corridor Project.   The location(s) of these five Townships have been identified in the PTR.  Besides the location(s), the extent of area to be utilised for creation of each Township has also been specified   in   the   PTR,   which   applies   proprio   vigore   to   the expression “Townships” in the FWA.  The term “Townships”, no 64 doubt, includes housing, but a standalone group housing scheme cannot  be   regarded   as   a  Township   as   such.     The   Townships would, however, comprise of not only housing, but also schools, hospitals, shopping complexes, parks and open spaces, as noted in Schedule 4, which reads thus: ­ “ SCHEDULE 4 Bangalore­Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Possible Business and Services 1. Power  Generation & Transmission  Distribution & Metering  2. Water  Purification & Transmission  Distribution  Reservoirs 3. Sewage  Collection & Treatment Recycling & Selling the water  Selling by product 4. Tele­communication  Transmission & Switching  Distribution in township  5. Expressway toll facilities  6. Restaurants and Gas Pumps 7. Interchange Plazas 8. Hospitals 9. Schools Primary and High Schools Colleges 10. Hotels & Motels (Townships) 11. Real Estate  65 ­ Commercial  ­ Industrial  ­ Housing ­ Municipal ­ Rental 12. Garbage 13. Cable TV 14. Parking Authority 15. Entertainment  ­ Golf Course ­ Movie Theatres ­ Bars ­ Amusement Park 16. Marriage Mandaps 17. Temples and religious activities 18. Convention and Exhibition Centres 19. Land Management 20. Industrial Plants 21. Any other such business area which may emerge from time to time as permitted by law.” Besides Schedule 4, it may be appropriate to advert to Schedule 1,   which   deals   with   the   total   Land   to   be   used   for   the Infrastructure Corridor Project.  The bifurcation of the extent of land to be used for different activities, such as Toll Road and Township   areas   township­wise,   is   also   specified.     Schedule   1 reads thus: ­ “ SCHEDULE 1 Land

66

The figures noted above are approximates.” To   put   it   differently,   the   Project   Proponents   are   obliged   to construct the five Townships at the demarcated location(s) only and to the extent of land specified therefor.  Any other proposal of the Project Proponents would be nothing short of deviation from the FWA in particular.  It is not necessary for us to dilate on the essential   specifications   and   components   to   constitute   a Township.  Suffice it to observe that the Project Proponents are obliged   to   construct   housing   in   the   area   demarcated   for Townships   and   ensure   that   the   other   socio­economic infrastructure components such as schools, hospitals, shopping complexes,   parks   and   open   spaces   etc.   are   also   provided   for within   the   Townships.     The   construction   of   the   essential components   including   housing,   as   expressly   provided   in   the FWA, must also comply with the municipal laws governing such constructions.  For, Schedule 2 of the FWA reads as follows:­ 67 “ SCHEDULE 2 Approvals The   Company   shall   have   received   the   required permissions, approval, sanctions and/or licences under the following acts and rules of GOI and GOK: 1. Environment   (Protection)   Act,   1986   –  Section   3(1) and Section 3(2)(v).  2. Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – Rule 5(3)(a); 3. Water   (Prevention   and   Control   of   Pollution)   Act, 1974 – Section 25. 4. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981­ Section 21. 5. Clearance and confirmation from GOK that the Land does   not   contain   reserve   forest   under   the   Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – Section 44 and Section 28. 6. Exemption   under   Section   20   of   the   Urban   Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for holding land in the site falling within the Urban Agglomerations.  7. Declaration by GOK under the appropriate Act and formation of Greenbelt.  8. Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – Section 9 in respect of stamp duty payable on the amounts secured any by mortgage   deeds   executed   in   connection   with   the Infrastructure Corridor Project.  9. Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.  10. Consent of the Telegraph Authority under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 and Part V of the Indian   Telegraph   Rules   for   the   provision   of telecommunication facilities.  11. Permissions approvals under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for,   Offshore borrowings and debt servicing.   Appointment   of   and   payment   to   the   foreign contractors.   Purchase or lease of equipment supplies from abroad.   Appointment   of   and   payment   to   non­ resident/foreign   consultants,   advisors   and experts.  68  Consent   to   remit   dividends   to   non­resident shareholders.   Consent   for   remittance   to   non­resident directors.   Permission for creation of securities in favour of non­resident lenders.  12. Exemption under Section 9 of Karnataka Stamp Act  for purchase of the Land.  13. Rural Development and Panchayat Raj.  14. Applicable rules of the Irrigation Department of  GOK. 15. Town & Country Planning Act, 1961.  16. Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules, 1964 and 1965.” 43. Indeed, while planning for the development of Townships, it is open to the Project Proponents to deviate from the PTR within the defined norms to the extent such deviation is required to enable   the   parties   to   realise   the   full   benefits   intended   from development of the Project.  But, that is required to be done only with prior written approval of the State.  This is made amply clear by Article 7.1 of the FWA itself.  Article 7 reads thus: ­ “ARTICLE 7.  TOWNSHIPS. 7.1   Development.   Each   of   GOK   and   the   Company acknowledges   and   agrees   that   the   industrial   and commercial   development   of   the   Townships   by   the Company   is   an   integral   part   of   the   Infrastructure Corridor Project and its goal of increasing and promoting industry,   trade,   commerce   and   tourism   in   Bangalore, Mysore   and   the   Infrastructure   Corridor.     Accordingly, GOK   will   assist   the   Company   in   the   manner contemplated herein so that the Company may develop the   Townships   in   the   manner   described   in   the Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report and as 69 authorised   in   the   Government   Order.     The   Company may deviate from the Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical   Report   in   the   development   of   the Townships   within   the   applicable   law   to   the   extent such deviation is required to enable the Parties to realize the full benefits intended from development of the   Infrastructure   Corridor   Project   and   with   prior written approval of GOK which approval shall not be   unreasonably withheld by GOK. 7.2.  Operation and Maintenance. GOK and the Company agree that the Company shall have the right to operate the Townships. The Company and GOK shall enter into an agreement negotiated in good faith by each for the operation and  maintenance   and   in   accordance   with applicable   laws.   Notwithstanding   the   previous sentence   on   the   first   anniversary   of   the   Township Completion Date, the Company shall transfer to GOK the   assets   relating   to   the   Townships   set   forth   in Schedule 5 and the right of way over the Land that may be required with respect to such assets, but not including any ownership interest in any part of the Land (the “Transferred Township Assets”) and shall assign the administration of such Townships to GOK or a GOK Governmental  Instrumentality   designated by GOK, GOK shall pay to the Company the sum of Rs.1 for such Transferred Township Assets and shall assume   all   obligations   relating   thereto   and   to   the   GOK shall contract administration of the Townships. with the Company to provide to the Townships after such assumption the utilities  and   amenities   theretofore provided   by   the   Company   or   its   Affiliates   or   to   be thereafter provided for which the Company shall receive reasonable compensation agreed to by the Parties in good faith negotiation. GOK will indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its Affiliates and each of its and their respective directors, managers, officers, employees  and agents from any and all expense, loss or claim relating to the Townships (or any assets or part thereof) and the administration,   management   and   operation   thereof arising in respect of any date on or after  the   date   of such possession and assumption.  7.2.1   Deliveries Upon Transfer .   Each Party shall deliver   to   the   other   Party   all   documents   and things necessary to effect the transfer set forth above, including  (i) the delivery by the Company 70 of an agreement assigning and transferring the Transferred Township Assets, (ii) the delivery by   GOK   of   an   agreement   in   which   GOK assumes   all   obligations   of   the   Company relating   to   the   Transferred   Township   Assets and   the   administration,   management, operation and maintenance of the Townships after the date of such assumption and releases in full the Company and its Affiliates from all liability relating to the Transferred Township Assets and such administration, management, operation and maintenance after such date and (iii) the delivery by GOK to the Company of Rs.1 . 7.2.2     Maintenance .     In   connection   with   the transfer contemplated by this Paragraph 7.2, GOK will offer to the Company the right to provide all utilities and amenities to the Townships on terms mutually agreed upon by the Parties. The failure of the Parties to mutually agree to the provision of any such utilities or amenities will entitle GOK to contract   the   provision   of   such   utilities   or amenities   with   a   third   party,   GOK   or   a   GOK Governmental Instrumentality on terms no more favourable   then   those   offered   by   GOK   to   the Company.  7.3   Construction   Responsibilities.   The   Company   shall assure   that   its   construction,   development   and maintenance   obligations   in   relation   to   each   Township shall be performed in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.  7.4. Completion of the Townships.    Within 30 days of the completion of the full industrial, commercial and other   development,   including   the   services   and businesses   contemplated   in   Schedule   4,   of   the Townships (including sale by  the Company of those parts of the Townships intended to be sold as part of the   development   of   the   Townships),   the   Company shall deliver a notice in writing to GOK with regard to such   completion   (The   “Township   Completion Notice”) . The Company shall specify in such Township Completion Notice the date on which full development of the Townships was completed (the “Township Completion Date”). The parties understand  that  the  Company will 71 develop   the   Infrastructure   Corridor   Project   in   a coordinated manner in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and that work at anytime may be conducted on all or any part of the Land with respect to the Toll Road, the Townships, the Water  Supply  Facilities,  the Telecommunication Facilities, the Power Plants and the utilities   and   other   supports   ancillary   thereto   in furtherance of the Infrastructure Corridor Project.   The basic   infrastructure   for   the   Townships   will   be substantially  completed   (i.e.   minimal   reasonable facilities that enable some people to be able to live in the   Townships   shall   have   been   completed)   within twelve   (12)   years   from   the   date   of   the   Toll   Road Completion Notice.   The Township Completion Date in   no   event   shall   be   later   than   the   date   which   is thirty   (30)   years   from   the   date   the   Toll   Road Completion Notice as or should or would have been delivered   pursuant   to   the   provisions   of   Paragraph 6.6.2 and clause (iii) of Paragraph 6.6.3 . 7.5  Warranties.  The Company warrants to GOK that: 7.5.1   The   Company   will   industrially   and commercially   develop   the   townships   so   as   to promote   the   industry,   trade,   commerce   and tourism  in such  Townships as intended  by  the Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report; 7.5.2 all the skill and care to be expected of a professionally   qualified   and   competent   designer experienced in work of similar nature and scope as   that   required   in   connection   with   the development of the Townships will be exercised in the design of the Townships; 7.5.3    the  developments in the  Townships will, when completed, comply in all material respects with all applicable Laws of India; 7.5.4     the   Townships   will   be   developed   using proven   up­to­date   good   practices   which   are consistent with applicable Laws of India; 7.5.5    no goods or materials generally known to be deleterious or otherwise not in  accordance with good engineering practice will be specified or selected by the  Company or any one acting on its behalf and no goods or materials which, after their specification or selection by or on behalf of the 72 Company  but before being  incorporated  into  the developments of the Townships, become generally known   to   be   deleterious   or   otherwise   not   in accordance with good engineering practice, will be incorporated   into   the   development   of   the Townships; and  7.5.6   it will obtain all necessary approvals from an   appropriate   GOK   Governmental Instrumentality   with   regard   to   the   Technical Requirements for the Townships. 7.6 Execution   of   Documentation.   GOK   and   the Company   shall   execute   such   agreements, Certificates,   instruments   and   other documentation   in   order   to   give   effect   to   the purposes of this Article 7.” (emphasis supplied) 44. Article   3   deals   with   the   obligations   of   the   State   for implementation  of  the  Project referred  to  in  the  FWA.     Much emphasis has been placed on Article 3.2.3, which postulates that the State will not restrict the use of the land in any way and the Project   Proponents   shall   have   full   freedom   and   discretion   to industrially and commercially develop and use the land.  Article 3 reads thus: ­ “ARTICLE 3. OBLIGATIONS OF GOK GOK covenants, agrees and undertakes that it shall perform,   and   shall   cause   its   Governmental Instrumentalities   to   perform,   each   of   the   following obligations: 3.1.  Approvals. 3.1.1 GOK   shall   use   its   best   efforts   to   grant,   and cause its Governmental  Instrumentalities,   GOI   and GOI   governmental   Instrumentalities   to   grant,   all Approvals required in connection with the Infrastructure 73 Corridor Project,  including   all   Approvals   listed   on Schedule 2.  3.1.2   GOK shall use its best efforts to dispose of, resist and   resolve   any   obstacles   or   impediments   created   or placed by any Person to thwart or challenge any part of the Infrastructure Corridor Project.   3.2  Land  3.2.1 GOK shall use its best efforts to, and cause its Governmental Instrumentalities to, promulgate, facilitate, initiate,   advocate   and/or   amend   to   the   full   extent possible under the Laws of India any and all enactments, acts and legislation necessary or desirable to enable GOK or   any   GOK   Governmental   Instrumentality   to   obtain, procure and/or transfer the Land to the Company for the purposes set forth in this Agreement.  3.2.2. GOK   shall   authorise   and   take   whatever   other action that may be necessary for the   use   of   any   part   of the   Land   and/or   any   other   tract   of   land   reasonably requested by the Company as a waste dump/disposal site for the waste generated by any of the Components of the Infrastructure Corridor Project during construction and development of the Infrastructure Corridor Project, all in accordance with applicable law.  3.2.3 GOK covenants that it will not restrict the use of the Land in any way and that the Company shall have full freedom and discretion to industrially and   commercially   develop   and   use   the   Land,   as generally   contemplated   by   this   Agreement   except that GOK shall zone and rezone, and shall cause to be zoned and rezoned, all Land in a manner consistent with its intended use in the Infrastructure Corridor Project   as   contemplated   by   this   Agreement   or   as reasonably   requested   by   the   Company,   all   in accordance with applicable law.  3.2.4 GOK covenants that upon transfer of the Land as contemplated hereby, the  Company   will   have good, valid, clear and marketable title to the Land and all buildings, structures and other improvements thereon, free of any Encumbrances, GOK will indemnify and  hold harmless and the Company and its Affiliates and their respective directors, managers, officers, employees and   agents   from   any   and   all   expenses,   loses   or   claims relating to the use or ownership of such Land by the 74 Company   or   any   project   Company   in   the   manner contemplated herein.  3.2.5 Company shall request and GOK shall use its best efforts to cause GOK Instrumentalities to, remove in the most expeditious manner possible any person that trespasses or encroaches on any part of the Land or any right of the Company hereunder and shall take all other action reasonably requested by the Company to permit the Company to fully enjoy its rights thereon or thereto and to develop the Land in the manner contemplated in this Agreement.  3.2.6 GOK   covenants   that   it   shall   provide   all assistance reasonably  requested by the Company with respect   to   clearance   and   preparation   of   the   Land   for development in the manner contemplated herein. .....” (emphasis supplied) Considering the fact that the State is obliged to facilitate the Project Proponents to deviate from the PTR specifications adopted in the FWA  for the  development of  Townships,  that does  not mean that the Project Proponents will set up housing complex at location(s)   other   than   those   demarcated   for   five   Townships including not providing for other components of Townships in the proposal or limit the proposal only to one component, such as housing   and   excluding   the   other   mandatory   components   ­ schools, hospitals, shopping complexes, parks and open spaces etc.     Such   interpretation   cannot   be   countenanced   and   if accepted, it would inevitably defeat the very purpose of the well­ defined project intended to address the increasing urbanisation 75 problems and for orderly development of Bangalore City including smooth and accident­free traffic between Bangalore and Mysore Expressway. The   next   question   is:   whether   the   stipulations   and 45. specifications in the FWA regarding the scope of work and the application   of   both   parties   stood   modified   or   altered   due   to supplementary   agreements   dated   6.10.1999   and   31.3.2000? Even on a fair reading of these agreements, we find that there is no express clause therein which would alter the scope of work and the obligations of both parties regarding the setting up of five self­sustaining   Townships   only   at   the   demarcated   location(s). The supplementary agreements, however, deal with other aspects with which we are not concerned nor are the same relevant to decide the matters in issue.  Similarly, the Tripartite Agreement dated 9.8.2002 between the State, NICE and NECE also does not alter or modify the stipulations and specifications for setting up of   five   self­sustaining   Townships   only   at   the   demarcated locations.  The High Court has placed emphasis on clause 1.1.3 of the Tripartite Agreement, which reads thus: ­ “1.1.3  Stage 1 of the Infrastructure Corridor shall mean (a) Toll road (Section ­A) 76 (b) Acquisition of the land and such rights, title and interests therein as may be necessary for the above­mentioned roads and development and sale of land.  (c) Basic   development   and   sale   of   land, including   that   at   ten   (10)   interchanges   and Township­1” We fail to understand as to how this clause can be construed to mean that the original stipulations and specifications regarding the   five   designated   Townships   in   the   FWA   stood   modified   or altered in any manner.  This clause only deals with the meaning of “Stage 1 of the Infrastructure Corridor”.   Indeed, clause (c) thereof refers to Township–1, but that reference is in the context of   basic   development   and   sale   of   land,   and   by   no   stretch   of imagination,   can   be   construed   to   mean   that   Township–1 (Corporate Centre) could be set up at any other location much less at intersections demarcated in the PTR.   The purpose of intersections is to provide for free flow of traffic across the area. All the five Townships referred to in the PTR are indisputably far away from intersections.   Despite that, the Project Proponents have proposed for group housing scheme in Section A of the Project at intersections 5/7 thereat on the peripheral road.  This is notwithstanding the fact that even the Tripartite Agreement 77 does   not   modify   the   location(s)   and   specifications   for   the Townships referred to in the PTR, which forms part of the FWA.   46. The thrust of the argument of the Project Proponents is that housing is a permitted usage, in terms of the ODP/Master Plan. For, the area for which the proposal for group housing scheme had been submitted is within yellow zone/residential zone.  The question is: whether the Project Proponents can rely solely on ODP/Master Plan, notified by the Planning Authority in exercise of statutory function as a Planning Authority (for the entire area including the Project area)?   The ODP/Master Plan, no doubt, would apply and must be reckoned if any building proposal/plan is submitted to the Planning Authority.   However, the Project Proponents are obliged to develop the Project only in the manner provided for in the FWA.   For, the right to develop the Project bestowed on the Project Proponents flows, primarily, from the FWA and the supplementary agreements in that regard.  Unless the FWA enables the Project Proponents to set up Townships at location(s) other than location(s) for five Townships demarcated in the FWA read with PTR and  as standalone  group  housing scheme, the question of Project Proponents unilaterally using the 78 allotted land for construction of a group housing scheme spread over in 42 acres and 30 guntas, that too at location(s) other than demarcated for five Townships, cannot be countenanced.   Only upon grant of prior permission by the State in that regard, the stipulations   in   the   FWA   (about   the   location(s)   of   the Townships/group   housing   scheme),   would   stand   relaxed   and modified and the Project Proponents would then be entitled to pursue such proposal with the Planning Authority.   The State can do so in terms of Article 3.2.3 and the Project Proponents can request   the   State   in   that   regard   by   invoking   the   enabling provision in Article 7.1 (both of the FWA).   47. To put it differently, the zone specified in the ODP/Master Plan   per se   is not enough to allow the Project Proponents to unilaterally use the land  made over to them after acquisition from private land owners for the Project, for purpose and manner other than specified in the FWA and the PTR. 48. Much emphasis was placed on the order dated 3.11.2009 passed by this Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 144/2006 and connected   contempt   petitions   in   Civil   Appeal   Nos.   3492­ 3494/2005 and connected appeals to contend that the Planning 79 Authority   and   the   State   were   obliged   to   allow   the   Project Proponents to complete the Project and also permit them to use the land allotted to them, as per the alignment specified in the ODP/Master   Plan   dated   12.2.2004.     The   said   order   dated 3.11.2009 reads thus: ­ “We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the Contempt Application.  After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after   going   through   the   materials   on   record   and   the application for Contempt, we are of the view that pending final disposal of the Contempt proceeding, the following order may be passed: ­  By   a   final   Judgment,   this   Court   directed   the State/respondents to implement the Bangalore­Mysore 1 Infrastructure   Corridor   Project.   Unfortunately,   the   said project   has   not   yet   been   implemented   by   the State/respondents. On 4th of February, 2009, when this Contempt proceeding was taken up for hearing by this Court, Mr. G. E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General of India (as he then was) appearing for the State, stated before the Court that the State Government has decided to   implement   the   Judgment   of   the   High   Court   of Karnataka, as upheld by this Court, and needs time for implementation of the decision. Unfortunately, in spite of such submission made by the learned Solicitor General of India (as he then was), we are informed that the project has not yet been implemented. While some argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the Advocate General of the State, who is present today in Court,   who   submitted   before   us   that   the   State   has already taken all steps to implement the project and in fact,   some   lands   have   already   been   allotted   to   the applicants.   Since   the   learned   Advocate   General   of   the State submitted that all possible steps have been taken to implement the project and to act in compliance with the Judgment   of   this   Court,   we   direct   that   the   2   State Government shall constitute a Committee to be headed by the   Chief   Minister   of   Karnataka   for   the   purpose   of implementation   of   the   project   in   question,   which   will nd submit   a   report   by   22   of   November,   2009   as   to 80 allotment and possession of lands for completion of the project and such steps can be taken within the time that may be mentioned in the report and the project shall be allowed to be completed as per the alignment specified in the Outline Development Plan dated 12th of February, 2004 issued by the Bangalore Mysore   Infrastructure   Corridor   Area   Planning Authority as per the Town and Country Planning Act .  th Let this matter be placed for further orders on 26  of November, 2009 at 3.30 PM.” (emphasis supplied) Indisputably, these contempt petitions were in reference to the order passed by this Court on 20.4.2006 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3492­3494/2005 and connected appeals.   Those appeals were against the decision of the High Court, which had considered two questions   posed   before   it,   as   noted   in   paragraph   21   of   the reported judgment in   All India Manufacturers Organisation (supra).  The same reads thus: ­ “21. The  High  Court   in  the  impugned   judgment   (vide para   18)   raised   the   following   two   questions   for consideration in the three writ petitions: “(1) Whether   the   FWA   entered   into   between   the Government of Karnataka and Nandi was a result of any fraud or misrepresentation as alleged by J.C.   Madhuswamy   and   others   and   the   State Government? (2) Whether any excess land than what is required for the Project had been acquired by the State Government and whether it is open to it to raise such a plea?”” The High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the State and all its instrumentalities, including the KIADB to execute the 81 Project as conceived originally and to implement the FWA in its letter and spirit.  That direction was the subject matter of assail by   the   State   on   the   ground   that   the   direction   amounted   to mandamus to specifically perform the FWA, which is extremely complex contract.   At the same time, the State had contended that  the   Project  was   vitiated   by   fraud,   misrepresentation   and mala fide.   However, the latter plea was given up before this Court as noted in paragraph 24 of the reported judgment.   49. The fact remains that the original proceedings in the form of writ petitions were filed as public interest litigation before the High Court, challenging the Project in question, the stipulations in the FWA and because in the garb of the Project, acquisition of excess land was resorted to by the State, which would eventually result   in   undue   profiteering   by   Project   Proponents.     In   our opinion, neither the judgment rendered in appeal by this Court in   (supra)   nor   the All   India   Manufacturers   Organisation observation found in the order dated 3.11.2009 will be of any avail to the Project Proponents.   For, the Court was not called upon to adjudicate the question even indirectly, as to whether the subject proposal for setting up of group housing scheme could be 82 proceeded directly before the Planning Authority just because it is in conformity with the ODP/Master Plan and even though it is proposed at a location different than the demarcated location(s) for the five Townships in the FWA read with the PTR.  No such plea was raised by the Project Proponents.  In other words, none of the Court orders referred to by the Project Proponents had examined the questions/issues involved in these appeals. 50. Admittedly,   in   the   present   case,   the   modified   proposal submitted by the Project Proponents on 5.5.2012 for developing 42 acres 30 guntas of land as group housing scheme, pertained to Survey Nos. 17(P), 18, 19, 20/1, 20/3, 21/1(P), 21/2A2(P), 21/2B(P),   21/2C(P),   21/2D(P)   and   21/2E(P)   at   village Kommagatta,   Kengeri   Hobli,   Bangalore   South   Taluk   (at intersection 5/7, Section A of the Project on the peripheral road). It was not for setting up of Township as such.  Neither the PTR nor the FWA envisages construction of standalone group housing scheme, that too at a location other than demarcated location(s) for five Townships.   Thus, it was a clear case of deviation from the stipulations and specification contained in the FWA read with the PTR; and to relax or modify the same, prior permission of the 83 State is made mandatory in terms of the Article 7.1.   For that reason,   the   Planning   Authority   had   informed   the   Managing Director, NECE vide letter dated 28.5.2012 to obtain NOC from the concerned authorities.  The same reads thus: ­ “BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR LOCAL AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY OFFICE OF THE DIECTOR FOR TOWN PLANNING, P.B. NO.5257 M.S. BUILDING, GATE NO.4,  DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560001 No.   BMICAPA/339/ProaPraPa/541/2011­12           Dated: 28.05.2012 The Managing Director M/s Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Limited Midford House. Midford Garden,  M.G. Road, Bangalore­540001. Sir,  Sub: Regarding   approval   for   construction   of   Group housing in the land measuring 53 acres 05 guntas in Sy. No.17 Part, 18, 19, 20/1, 20/3, 20/4, 21/1 part,   21/2A1   part,   21/2A2   Part,   21/2B   part, 21/2C   Part,   21/2D   part   and   21/2E   Part   of Kommaghatta   Village,   Kengeri   Hobli,   Bangalore South Taluk.  Ref.: Your   request   date:   NECE/05/170   dated 05.05.2012   with   reference   to   the   above   subject,   on verification   of   the   proposal   submitted   in   the   letter   at reference above, the following defects are noticed.  1. Submit Survey sketch Prepared by the taluk Surveyor and certified by the Tahsildar showing the proposed land, existing   road   connection,   adjacent   survey   numbers, Karab land.  2.  Submit No Objection Certificate from the Project Co­ Ordinal or – BMICP, KIADB (BMICP), P.W.D. with regard to Provision for this proposal as per the FWA’ entered into between Government and NICEL.  3. Submit No Objection Certificate from KSPCB, BWSSB, Environment Pollution Department and BESCOM relating to the proposed lands.  84 4. Submit   Detailed   Project   Report   relating   to   the proposed lands.  5. Submit No objection Certificates from Fire Department, Airport Department and BSNL relating to the proposed lands.  6. Submit on affidavit stating therein that no disputes or cases relating to the proposed lands are pending in the courts.  The above documents have to be submitted within 7 days of   receipt   of   the   above   letter,   failing   which   your representation   will   be   rejected   and   will   be   kept   in abeyance.  Yours faithfully,  Sd/­ Additional Director for Town And Country Planning and  Member Secretary BMICAPA Bangalore.” In response to the above noted communication, the NECE vide letter   dated   6.6.2012,   wrote   to   the   Member   Secretary   of   the Planning Authority.  The said letter reads thus: ­ “NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LIMITED Registered Office: 1, Midford House, Midford Garden, Off. M.G. Road, Bangalore – 560001, INDIA Telephone: (80) 2555 9819, 2559 5252 Fax: (80) 2555 9998   Email :    nandi@nicelimited.com Ref: NECE/06/211 Dated: June 6, 2012 Without Prejudice The Member Secretary,  Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure  Corridor Area Fanning Authority,  Office of the Director of Town and Country Planning,  P.B. No. 5257, Gate No.4, M.S. Building,  Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi,  Bangalore­560 001 Sir,  85 Sub: Approval for Group Housing Scheme in 42­08G in Sy.   Nos.   17(P),   18,   19,   20/1,   20/3,   21/1(P), 21/2A1(P), 21/2A2(P), 21/2B(P), 21/2C(P), 21/2D(P) and   21/2E(P)   of   Kommaghatta   Village,   Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.  Ref.:1)   Your   Letter   No.   BMICAPA/339/Pra.Pra   / th 1541/2011­12 dt. 28  May 2012 th 2) Our   Letter   No.   NECE/05/170,   dated   5   May 2012. With   reference   to   your   above   letter,   we   furnish   the following clarifications/documents to the queries raised by you therein: 1. We are submitting an original survey sketch prepared by   the   Taluk   Surveyor   and   duly   attested   an authenticated by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk. The survey sketch clearly shows the existing bridge, road, kharab land and the relevant survey numbers surrounds, the land for which your approval is now sought.  2. Your   second   query   requesting   us   to   provide   “No Objection Certificate” from the Authorities referred above would be once against breach of terms of understanding of the Framework Agreement since it can be clearly seen from the sale deeds executed by the KIADB transferring title of the above survey numbers, photocopy of which have already been submitted to you, we are, the absolute owners   of   the   land   in   question   without   any restrictions/limitations on the use of the land. This is in conformity   with   the   FWA   where   under   the   State Government has agreed that it will not restrict use of land in any manner and we shall be fully entitled at our discretion   to   industrial   and   commercially   develop   the land. We reproduce below for you ready reference clauses 3.2.3 and 3.8.3 of the FWA which read as follows: 3.2.3 GOK, covenants that will not restrict the use   of   the   Land   in   any   way   and   that   the Company shall have full freedom and discretion to industrially and commercially develop and use the   land   as   generally   contemplated   by   this Agreement   except   that   GOK   shall   come   and rezone, and shall cause to be zoned and rezoned, all   Land   in   a   manner   consistent   with   its 86 intended   use   in   the   Infrastructure   Corridor Project as contemplated by this Agreement or as reasonably   requested   by   the   Company,   all   in accordance with applicable law.  3.8.3 GOK   understands   that   each   of   the components   of   the   Infrastructure   Corridor Project is an integral part of the Industrial and commercial   development   of   the   Infrastructure Corridor ma manner designed and calculated to maximize   the   full   industrial   and   commercial growth,   potential   and   quality   of   life   in   such corridor.   Accordingly,   GOK   shall   use   its   best efforts to cause land of appropriate width from the   outer   boundaries   of   the   entry   and   exist points (rampways interchanges) of the Toll Road the outer boundaries of each of the Townships, each as identified by the Company, not to be rezoned   for   use   other   than   for   farming   (such area   being   called   herein   the   “Greenbelt”).   The appropriate width referred to in the immediately preceding sentence shall be determined by the appropriate   Local   Planning   Authority.   In   the event an area to be included in the Greenbelt is on the date hereof already developed, GOK shall not   be   required   to   rezone   such   land   for   the Greenbelt, GOK acknowledges and agrees that the   Greenbelt   will   protect   and   buffer   the   Toll Road   and   the  Townships   from   unfettered   and uncontrolled   development   which   would   cause irreparable   harm   to   the   Toll   Road   and   the Townships   and   undermine   the   goals   and purposes of the infrastructure Corridor Project contemplated hereby  and that  in the event  of breach   of   this   Paragraph   3.8.3   no   adequate namely,   would   exist   and   damages   would   be difficult   to   measure   and   accordingly,   the Company shall be entitled to Injunctive relief for specific performance pending resolution of any Dispute   involving   the   provisions   of   this Paragraph   3.8.3.     In   the   event   any   Person attempts   to   use   the   land   designated   for   the Greenbelt for purposes other than farming, the Company may in its sole discretion take any and all   steps   it   deems   necessary   or   required, including   the   initiation   of   legal   action   against such   Person,   to   step   or   prevent   such unauthorized use. GOK shall support to the full 87 extent possible under applicable law such efforts of   the   Company   to   stop   and   prevent   such unauthorized   use.   However,   violation   of   the Greenbelt by third parties shall not constitute a GOK Event of Default.  As you are aware, FWA has been upheld by the Hon’ble High   Court   of   Karnataka   in   its   judgments   dated 21.09.1998   and   03.05.2005   and   the   Hon’ble   Supreme Court in its judgment dated 20.04.2006 has affirmed the judgment dated 03.05.2005 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.  The legal position emerging from the reading of FWA and the rulings of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India clearly shows that our Company has absolute and full power and authority to   develop   the   land,   commercially   and   industrially, subject, however, to the ODP and the zoning regulations. As   such,   the   question   of   obtaining   No   Objection Certificate (NOC) or any other form of consent from the State Government would not arise.  3. The NOC’s obtained from BSNL, Airport and BWSSB and the acknowledgments for having applied to KSPCB, BESCOM and Fire Force and enclosed herewith.  4. The NOC’s from KSPCB, BESCOM and Fire Force will be submitted immediately after their receipt.  5. The detailed Project Report is enclosed.  6. You have requested to submit an Affidavit Stating that “no   law   suits”   are   pending   in   any   of   the   courts   with regard to the subject lands. We would like to state that we   have   already   submitted   the   original   copy   of   the Affidavit along with the letter cited at reference (ii) copy of which is enclosed.  In addition to this, a true copy of the learned Advocate General’s opinion dated 24.12.2011 furnished by in to the Planning Authority in response to the reference in this behalf obtained by us under the provisions of the Right   to   Information   Act   is   enclosed   for   your   ready reference.  This   is   for   your   kind   information   and   further   needful action in the matter.  88 Thanking you Your faithfully,  For Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Limited,  Sd/­ Authorised Signatory” Notably,   even   the   State   had   intimated   the   Planning 51. Authority   vide   letter   dated   19.12.2013   sent   by   the   Principal Secretary,   Public   Works,   Ports   and   Inland   Water   Transport Department, that in respect of change in land use and approval of   residential   developments,   prior   decision   of   the   Empowered Committee should be obtained.   The said communication reads thus: ­ “LoE 114 CRM 2013 Secretariat, Government of Karnataka Vikasa Soudha th Bangalore, Dated 19  December, 2013 From  Principal Secretary Government of Karnataka Public   Works,   Ports   and   Inland   Water   Transport Department Bangalore.  To  Member Secretary Bangalore­Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority, Multi­storeyed Building,  Bangalore­1 Sir,  Sub: Re:  Furnishing of documents and opinion as sought for   by   the   authority   with   respect   to   the   BMICP project.  89 Ref:  1. Your   letter   No.   BMICAPA:   339:PraPra P:1541:2011­12 dated 17.07.2012 2. Your   letter   No.BMICAPA:145:Bhu.U.B:519:2011­12 dated 18.08.2011 and 12.04.2012 3. Your   letter   No.BMICAPA:371:Design:1629:2010­11 dated 12.08.2011 and 12.04.2012 4. Your   letter   No.BMICAPA:81:Bhu.U.B:422:2011­12 dated 12.08.2011, 07.09.2011 and 09.04.2012 5. Your   letter   No.BMICAPA:80:Residential Plan:421:2011­12   dated   12.08.2011,   04.11.2011 and 14.12.2011 6. Your   letter   No.BMICAPA:79:Residential Design:420:2011­12 dated 12.08.2011 7. Letter   No.BMICAPA:Yo   Sa:29:Information:2013­14 dated   23.09.2013   of   Shri   B.   Mahendra,   Member Secretary, BMICAPA, Bangalore.  The Cabinet in its meeting on 30.08.2007 with respect to the subject matter as mentioned above while referring to Article   1.1.3   of   the   Tripartite   Agreement   entered   into between M/s. NICE, M/s. NECEL and the Government of Karnataka on 09.08.2002 while referring to clauses in the   said   agreement   namely   (c)   basic   development   and sale of land including that at ten (10) interchanges and Township 1 as follows­ (iii) NICEL or anyone who is implementing the BMICP shall not be entitled to sell/alienate any portion of the land   in   the   interchanges/road   portion   of   the   BMICP. Necessary steps be taken by the concerned department to cancel  the  agreement   dated  09.08.2002  between  NICE and   the   Government   of   Karnataka   insofar   as   it introduces   clause   for   sale   of   land   in   Para   1.1.3   or elsewhere in the agreement.  Apart from that, the judgments rendered in the context of implementation   of   the   project   by   the   High   Court   of Karnataka   and   Supreme   Court   mandate  execute   the project as conceived originally and upheld in Somashekar Reddy’s case and to implement the FWA in letter and spirit.   The   clauses   in   the   Tripartite   Agreement   dated 09.08.2002 which are in contradiction with the FWA are 90 to be ignored. Further, the agreement dated 09.08.2002 is to be limited to assignment only.  The PTR submitted by M/s NICE is a prominent part of the FWA and the project will have to be implemented in accordance   with   the   Technical   Report.   As   per   the definition of Toll Road and Township in the FWA which is reproduced   below,   the   Toll   Road   is   to   be   specifically restricted   to   Toll   Road   as   defined.   Further,   for   the residential and commercial development, Township has been   separately   provided   for   and   in   such   Township, different   commercial   and   residential   plans   being provided, the same are to be implemented in accordance with the rules.  “Toll   Road”   means   the   portion   of   the   infrastructure corridor   project   consisting   of   Phase   I   Road,   Phase   II Road,   Phase   III   Road,   Phase   IV   Road,   Phase   V  Road, Phase VI Road, the Bangalore Feeder, the Mysore Feeder, Link Road and the Outer Peripheral Road collectively; “Townships” means the townships described as Township 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 in the Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report which will be developed by the company and/or   project   companies   for   the   industrial   and commercial   growth   and   other   development   of   the infrastructure corridor and the provision of roads, supply of   water,   and   electricity,   street   lighting,   sewage, conservancy,   and   such   other   conveniences   and   socio­ economic   infrastructure,   inter   alia,   comprising   of housing, schools, hospitals, shopping complexes, parks and   open  spaces   as  set   forth  in   Schedule   4   attached hereto.  M/s. NICE has completed the Peripheral Road and Link Road.   However,   with   respect   to   the   facilities   that   are necessary for drivers of vehicles being plied on such road, such   as   petrol   bunks,   service   stations,   and   truck terminals,   it   is   noticed   that   till   date   none   of   these facilities have been provided for.  In the light of the above points, before any decision is taken with respect to change in land use and approval of residential developments, the pros and cons will have to be placed before the Empowered Committee constituted under the FWA and decision be obtained 91 from   it.   I   have   been   directed   to   inform   you accordingly.  Approved by the Principal Secretary PWD  Yours sincerely,  Sd/­ N. Mahalakshamma Project Coordinator (BMICP), Public Works,  Ports and Inland Water Transport Department” (emphasis supplied) 52. The fact remains that Article 7.1 of the FWA obliges the Project Proponents to submit proposal to the State for approval in case of any deviation.   No such proposal was submitted to the State.     Instead,   the   Project   Proponents   pursued   the   matter directly   with   the   Planning   Authority.     In   that   sense,   prior approval of the State for deviating from the FWA and in particular constructing housing complex at location other than demarcated for Townships, is not forthcoming.  Admittedly, no such approval was taken.  If such proposal was to be submitted to the State, it would be open to the State to examine the same on its own or refer the matter to the Empowered Committee constituted  for resolving   such   issues,   as   envisaged   in   Article   4   of   the   FWA. Article 4 reads thus: ­ “ARTICLE 4   EMPOWERED COMMITTEE 4.1   Empowered Committee. 92 4.1.1 Composition   and   Actions   of   Empowered Committee GOK represents and warrants that it has established   a   committee   (the   “Empowered Committee”) which consists of Chief Secretary and other members whose postings and titles are as set forth in Schedule 6 attached hereto.  In the event of a vacancy on the Empowered Committee, GOK shall fill such vacancy with a similarly titled person from the same GOK governmental Instrumentality.   The Empowered   Committee   shall   meet   only   after convening a duly called meeting and providing seven (7) Days prior written notice to the Company so that the   Company   may   make   available   to   such Committee a Company representative to answer any questions that the Empowered Committee may have and to update the Company on actions taken by such Committee.  4.1.2  Committee Determinations Do Not Modify Rights or Obligations. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the rights and obligations of the Parties to this   Agreement   and   the   parties   to   any   Project Contract shall be as set forth in this Agreement and such   Project   Contract   and   the   Empowered Committee shall not have the authority to modify or alter such rights and obligations other than through a written agreement between the Parties hereto or the   parties   thereto.   Subject   to   the   foregoing,   the Empowered Committee shall be the mechanism by which   GOK   will   coordinate   (with   any   necessary assistance   from   the   Company)  performance   of   its obligations under this Agreement, including to: 4.1.2.1     facilitate   and   expedite   all Approvals required in connection with the   Infrastructure   Corridor   Project   at the state and local level ; specifically, as the   Empowered   Committee   consists   of high   level   members   from   each   of   the affected ministries of GOK, it will act as the   “single   window   co­ordination centre”   with   respect   to   the   required clearance and permits ; such committee shall also assist the Company in all means possible with regard to obtaining any and all Approvals required from GOK or any GOI Governmental Instrumentality; 4.1.2.2   oversee   GOK   Governmental Instrumentalities   compliance   with   the provisions of this Agreement.  93 4.1.2.3     serve as the information centre and   clearinghouse   for   assembling   and disseminating information with respect to the Infrastructure Corridor Project to GOK and   the   GOK   Governmental Instrumentalities and the public at large; and   4.1.2.4   serve   as   the   primary intermediary on behalf of GOK and GOI and   any   Governmental   Instrumentality thereof   in   connection   with   dealings between GOK and the Company.  4.1.3    Committee Pronouncements and Decisions. GOK, on behalf of itself and the GOK Governmental Instrumentalities,   covenants   that   the   Company may rely on the pronouncements and decisions of the Empowered Committee as pronouncements and decisions   of   GOK   or   the   relevant   GOK Governmental   Instrumentality   in   connection   with the Infrastructure Corridor Project and that such pronouncements and decisions shall   be made by GOK or such GOK Governmental Instrumentalities in   an   expeditions   and   timely   manner.   GOK understands   and   agrees   that   this   is   one   of   the primary purposes of setting up such Empowered Committee and that it will facilitate and expedite the   realisation   of   the   goals   of   the   Infrastructure Corridor Project. 4.1.4       Committee Rights of Observation.   GOK shall have the right, upon reasonable prior notice to the Company, through the Empowered Committee, to observe the progress of Infrastructure Corridor Project.     The   company   shall   assist   GOK   in arranging   such   visits.     All   persons   visiting   the Infrastructure   Corridor   Project   site   on   behalf   of GOK shall comply with all reasonable instructions, directions and safety requirements as prescribed by the Company or its contractors from time to time. GOK shall cause all such persons to comply with the Company Rules and Regulations regarding site safety and access, and in the event any such GOK employee or representative fails to comply with any reasonable   requirements   of   the   Company,   GOK shall be exclusively liable for and shall indemnify, defend   and   hold   harmless   the   Company   against any and all damages, costs, claims, expenses and consequences  arising   out  of  such  failure.  Unless otherwise provided herein, such rights of GOK to visit the Infrastructure Corridor Project shall not be construed   directly   or   indirectly   as   a   contractual right of GOK to review, advise, recommend, approve or require changes.” 94 (emphasis supplied) Indeed, the Empowered Committee is not a statutory committee, but   it   can   be   so   constituted   in   terms   of   Article   4   read   with Schedule   6,   consisting   of   high   officials   of   the   concerned departments.   This is only to facilitate quick processing of the proposals   and   implementation   of   the   Infrastructure   Corridor Project   with   mutual   understanding   and   due   consultation wherever   necessary.     We   may   assume   that   the   Empowered Committee may not agree with the proposal, as it may be of the view that the deviation is quite substantial and would disrupt the core   objective   of   the   Integrated   Infrastructure   Corridor   (the Project), which has been designed with purpose of holistic and orderly development of the region as a whole.  In that eventuality, the Project Proponents would be required to resort to mechanism of  resolution  of   disputes  envisaged   in  Article   18   of   the   FWA, which reads thus: ­ “ARTICLE 18.  RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES 18.1  Mutual Discussions. In the event of a Dispute, the Parties   shall   endeavour   to   resolve   such   Dispute   by discussion in good faith in the first instance within thirty (30) days of Notice of such Dispute.  18.2 Referral to the Expert.   If any Dispute cannot be settled within such thirty (30) Day period and the Parties mutually agree in writing, such Dispute shall be referred to the Expert.  If the Expert does not arrive at a decision within sixty (60) days or if either Party does not accept the decision of the Expert, then either Party may, upon giving   Notice   to   the   other   Party,   refer   the   Dispute 95 immediately for arbitration in accordance with Paragraph 18.3. …..”   A   priori,   it   must   necessarily   follow   that   the   Project 53. Proponents cannot and ought not to have directly approached the Planning Authority for grant of stated permission in reference to the   provisions   in   the   KTCP   Act   or   ODP/Master   Plan.     As aforesaid,   if   the   proposal   to   be   submitted   by   the   Project Proponents   was   compliant   with   the   stipulations   and specifications given in the FWA read with the PTR, only then the Project   Proponents   could   justifiably   approach   the   Planning Authority   directly   for   grant   of   permission   as   per   the   extant regulations   and   municipal   laws   applicable   in   that   regard,   to construct buildings and structures for establishing a Township. In   other   words,   the   proposal/application   of   the   Project Proponents would be a valid proposal/application to the Planning Authority only if it was to be in strict compliance with the land use specified in the FWA read with the PTR.   In case of any deviation   therefrom,   it   ought   to   accompany   a   formal   prior approval of the State or the Empowered Committee, as the case may be,  so that  it can be processed further by  the Planning Authority. 96 54. Much emphasis was placed on the fact that the appellants had   permitted   the   Project   Proponents   to   construct   housing complex at a location outside the demarcated area for the five Townships   referred   to   in   the   FWA.     Similarly,   as   the   stated location was falling in yellow zone being residential, the other neighbouring private land owners were permitted to develop their property for housing complex.  This argument does not take the matter any further for the Project Proponents, inasmuch as the land in question has been allotted to the Project Proponents by the   State   after   acquiring   it   from   private   land   owners   for implementation of the Project.   For that reason, the use of the land   should   be   strictly   in   conformity   with   the   FWA   and   the applicable stipulations in the PTR.  It is not open to the Project Proponents to contend that they can unilaterally develop the land allotted to them by the State in the manner other than specified in the FWA, being bound by the contractual obligations flowing from the FWA.   55. Notably,   the   State   had   granted   prior   permission   to   the Project Proponents to construct housing units at location(s) other than   the   five   Townships.     That   was   to   accommodate   the 97 concerned land losers in connection with the same Project as per the policy of the State.   Besides, the stated housing complex is not spread over in 42 acres and 30 guntas of land, so as to disrupt the holistic development envisaged in the FWA/PTR.  In any case, that could be done only after obtaining prior approval of the State in that regard.  As regards permission given to the private land owners, as aforesaid, that was given by the Planning Authority as per the applicable town planning regulations and in particular the use specified in the ODP/Master Plan.  For, their lands did not form part of the Project and also because they are not bound by the stipulations in FWA in particular, unlike the Project Proponents. 56. Reverting to the factum of assurance given by the Planning Authority in the earlier round of writ petition(s) that the modified proposal/application   dated   5.5.2012   will   be   considered   in accordance with law and also that the State was party to that petition, in our view, it does not entail in acquiescence or waiver of the jurisdictional issue by the State (regarding necessity of seeking   prior   approval   of   Empowered   Committee   and   No Objection   (Certificate)/approval   from   the   concerned   State 98 authorities).     In   that,   the   assurance   given   by   the   Planning Authority cannot come in the way of the State to urge that in law, the Project Proponents had no authority to develop the lands in question   except   as   per   the   stipulations   and   specifications prescribed in the FWA read with the relevant clauses of the PTR. As a matter of fact, the earlier writ petitions were not decided on merits, but came to be disposed of leaving all contentions open, in lieu of the assurance given by the Planning Authority that it would   consider   the   modified   application   as   per   law.     In   the present writ petitions, therefore, the State in the larger public interest is duty­bound to take a legal plea regarding jurisdictional issue including the extent of right of the writ petitioners (Project Proponents)   being   limited   to   stipulations   in   the   FWA.     Thus, neither the unilateral assurance given by the Planning Authority nor the fact that such specific reason has not been recorded by the Planning Authority in the impugned communication or that the State was party to the said writ petitions, would denude the State from raising the legal question regarding the scope of the FWA disentitling the Project Proponents for grant of any relief in the subject writ petitions.  Further, the High Court in the guise of issuing   mandamus   to   the   Planning   Authority   for   issuing   the 99 Commencement   Certificate,   in   effect,   has   prevented   the   State from calling upon the Project Proponents to strictly abide by the stipulations in the FWA.  That cannot be countenanced. It is urged that this Court had held that it would be open to 57. the Project Proponents to carry on construction work of housing on lands which are not falling within the Townships area, if the same were   otherwise  permissible  under  the   ODP/Master  Plan and the town planning regulations.  This submission is founded on complete misreading of the observations in the decision of this Court in     (supra).   As All India Manufacturers Organisation noticed   earlier,   the   lis   before   this   Court   including   review petition(s) had arisen on account of the challenge to the FWA and also the acquisition of land for the purpose of the corridor project being   excessive.     Neither   the   High   Court   nor   this   Court   was called   upon   to   answer   the   issue   now   raised   by   the   Project Proponents   that   it   was   free   to   construct   standalone   group housing scheme and at location(s) outside the demarcated five Townships (in the FWA/PTR).   58. Thus understood, the argument of the Project Proponents that the plea taken by the State is hit by  res judicata  and in any 100 case,   by   principles   of   constructive   res   judicata ,   cannot   be countenanced.   As a matter of fact, the Project Proponents did not pursue the plea of  res judicata  or of constructive  res judicata before   the   High   Court,   as   is   evident   from   the   points   for consideration   formulated   by   the   High   Court   in   paragraph   9 reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment (in paragraph 22). Even if it can be considered as a question of law, in our opinion, the same does not arise in the fact situation of the present case.   59. The   Project   Proponents   had   also   placed   reliance   on   the dictum of the High Court in  S.M. Mohan Rao Nadgir vs. State 22 , which, in our opinion has no bearing on of Karnataka & Ors. the question that arises for our consideration.  Paragraph 10 of the said decision as reproduced in the written submission filed by the Project Proponents, in fact merely sets out the factual matrix of that case and is certainly not an opinion of the Court answering   the  plea  required  to  be   adjudicated  in  the  present appeals.   Even the observation in   Dakshinamurthy vs. B.K. 23 Das, IAS & Ors. , being an order passed in Contempt Petitions filed in Civil Appeal Nos. 3492­3494/2005 and connected appeals 22 Decided by the High Court on 28.2.2005 in Writ Appeal No. 72/2004 and connected writ appeals 23 (2010) 1 SCC 64 101 [decided on 20.4.2006, as reported in  All India Manufacturers   (supra)]   will   be   of   no   avail   to   the   Project Organisation Proponents.  The fact recorded that the Project shall be allowed to be completed as per the alignment specified in the ODP/Master Plan, as noted therein, has no bearing on the questions dealt with in the present appeals. 60. Be it noted that the Project can be taken forward by the Project Proponents only in conformity with the stipulations and specifications in the FWA and the PTR.  Additionally, the Project Proponents are also obliged to ensure compliance of ODP/Master Plan and if so complied, the Planning Authority cannot create any impediment.   If the State accords approval to the deviation in terms of the FWA itself, the Project Proponents may be competent to carry on such a work.  To put it differently, prior approval of the State for deviation from the stipulations and specifications in the FWA is the quintessence.   We do not wish to burden this judgment   with   the   argument   about   attitude   of   the   concerned authorities in creating obstructions in completion of the Project because no official has been named in the writ petitions filed by the Project Proponents being responsible for that situation. 102 61. The argument of the Project Proponents that the housing complexes can be constructed even at intersections by placing reliance   on   the   observations   in   All   India   Manufacturers Organisation   (supra), is begging the question.   The issue is: whether it is open to the Project Proponents to deviate from the stipulations   and   specifications   of   the   FWA,   in   particular,   in respect of Townships without prior approval of the State?   The issue considered in the earlier rounds of litigation by this Court was   on   the   basis   of   stand   taken   by   the   State   to   defend   the Project, the FWA and the acquisition of land for the purpose of the project.  In the present appeals, the matter is required to be examined in the context of the stand of the Project Proponents that they are free to carry on construction of housing scheme at any   location   of   their   choice   even   outside   the   demarcated location(s)   for   five   Townships,   stretched   over   about   140 kilometres of the expressway, in the FWA and the PTR. 62. Reverting to the dictum in  M. Nagabhushana  (supra), the same will also be of no avail to the Project Proponents as it does not   militate   against   the   Planning   Authority   and   State,   in particular.  As already noted, the State is competent to maintain 103 its stand that the legal right of Project Proponents flows only from the terms and conditions specified in the FWA read with the PTR. That is a just plea available to the State and must be taken by it in the larger public interest to ensure that the objective of the Integrated   Corridor   Project   (the   Project)   is   not   marginalised, undermined   or   frustrated   in  any   manner.     If   development  as desired   by   the   Project   Proponents   on   the   stretch   of   140 kilometres   of   the   expressway   is   allowed,   it   would   result   in development   in   manner   other   than   the   one   planned   and conceived in the FWA and the PTR, the objective of which is to provide for holistic and orderly development of the self­sustaining Townships with all basic infrastructure and civic facilities and to ensure smooth and accident­free traffic between Bangalore and Mysore; population dispersal as per the National/State policy; to create new job opportunities for the residents in and around the Infrastructure Corridor; promote tourism; and decongest traffic etc. It   is   not   necessary   for   us   to   dilate   on   other   aspects 63. regarding   the   efficacy   of   the   FWA   and   the   PTR   or   the   other agreements executed between the parties, having held that it is 104 for the State to consider the proposal for allowing the Project Proponents to deviate from the stipulations and specifications of the FWA and the PTR and until that decision is taken by the State   or   its   instrumentalities   including   the   Empowered Committee   constituted   in   terms   of   the   FWA,   the   Planning Authority   cannot   process   the   proposal/application   directly submitted to it by the Project Proponents.   Further, such non­ compliant   proposal/application   submitted   by   the   Project Proponents directly to the Planning Authority must be regarded as infirm, invalid and  non­est  in law. 64. The next question is: whether the findings recorded by the High Court for setting aside the reasons given by the Planning Authority in the impugned communication dated 7.2.2015, can be said to be the just approach of the High Court?  In view of the conclusion reached by us hitherto, it is not necessary for us to dilate on the correctness of the view taken by the High Court in that regard.   65. Suffice it to observe that assuming the High Court was right in taking the view as it did to set aside the communication dated 7.2.2015, it was certainly not right in issuing mandamus to the 105 Planning   Authority   to   straightaway   grant   Commencement Certificate in respect of the modified proposal.  The appropriate order that could have been passed by the High Court in such a situation after setting aside the communication dated 7.2.2015, would have been to relegate the Project Proponents before the Planning   Authority   for   proceeding   with   this   proposal   in accordance   with   law   and   applicable   regulations   expeditiously after  considering   the   other   issues/points   raised   by   the   State. The Project Proponents would, however, rely on the exposition in paragraph 27 of the decision of this Court in   Badrinath vs. 24 Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. , which reads thus: ­ “27. This flows from the general principle applicable to “consequential orders”. Once the basis of a proceeding is gone, may be at a later point of time by order of a superior authority, any intermediate action taken in the meantime – like the recommendation of the State and by the UPSC and the action taken thereon – would fall to the ground. This principle of consequential orders which is applicable to   judicial   and   quasi­judicial   proceedings   equally applicable to administrative orders. In other words, where an order is passed by an authority and its validity is being reconsidered by a superior authority (like the Governor in this case) and if before the superior authority has given its decision, some further action has been taken on the basis of the initial order of the primary authority, then such further action will fall to the ground the moment the superior authority has set aside the primary order.”   Reliance   is   also   placed   on   Section   15   of   the   KTCP   Act,   in particular, proviso thereto, which reads thus: ­ 24 (2000) 8 SCC 395 106 “ 15 ­ Permission for development of building or land.­ (1)  On receipt of the application for permission under section 14, the Planning Authority shall furnish to the applicant a written acknowledgment of its receipt and after such inquiry as may be necessary either grant or refuse a commencement certificate: Provided that such certificate may be granted subject to   such   general   or   special   conditions   as   the   State Government may, by order made in this behalf, direct. (2)  If the Planning Authority does not communicate its   decision   to   the   applicant   within   three   months from   the   date   of   such   acknowledgment,   such certificate shall be deemed to have been granted to the applicant . Provided that the land use, change in land use or the development for which permission was sought for is in conformity with the outline development plan and the regulation   finally   approved   under   sub­section   (3)   of section 13. (3)   Subject   to   the   provisions   of   section   16,   no compensation shall be payable for the refusal of or the insertion   or   imposition   of   conditions   in   the commencement certificate. (4)  If any person does any work on, or makes any use of, any property in contravention of section 14 or of sub­ section (1) of this section, the Planning Authority may direct such person by notice in writing, to stop any such work in progress or discontinue any such use; and may, after   making   an   inquiry   in   the   prescribed   manner, remove or pull down any such work and restore the land to its original condition or, as the case may be, take any measure to stop such use. (5)  Any expenses incurred by the Planning Authority under   sub­section   (4)   shall   be   a   sum   due   to   such Authority under this Act from the person in default or from the owner of the land. Explanation.   ­The   power   to   grant   necessary permission under this section for a change of user of land shall include the power to grant permission for the retention on land of any building or work constructed or carried out thereon before the date of the publication of the   declaration   of   intention   to   prepare   an   outline development plan under sub­section (1) of section 10 or for the continuance of any use of land instituted before the said date. 107 (6)  Any   person   aggrieved   by   the   decision   of   the Planning Authority under sub­section (1) or sub­section (4)   may,   within   thirty   days   from   the   date   of   such decision, appeal to such authority as may be prescribed. (7)  The   prescribed   authority   may,   after   giving   a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant and   the   Planning   Authority,   pass   such   orders   as   it deems fit, as far as may be, within four months from the date of receipt of the appeal.” (emphasis supplied) We are not impressed by this submission.  The reported decision pressed into service does not go to the extent of justifying the direction issued by the High Court vide impugned judgment to issue Commencement Certificate.   Indisputably, the question of issuing   Commencement   Certificate   would   arise   only   if   the Planning   Authority   was   fully   satisfied   that   the   proposal/plan submitted by the Project Proponents is compliant in all respects in reference to the extant town planning rules and regulations. Moreso, because it is not a case where the Project Proponents were invoking the provision regarding deemed approval of the modified plan submitted on 5.5.2012.   66. As a result, we have no hesitation in taking view that the direction issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment, in any case, cannot be countenanced in law.  But this question, if we may say so, has become academic for the view that we have 108 already taken that the Project Proponents could not have directly approached   the   Planning   Authority   for   approval   of   modified proposal, which was replete with deviations from the stipulations and specifications in the FWA read with the PTR.   This is so because the right in favour of the Project Proponents to carry on development work on the lands referred to in the FWA and the PTR would enure only in conformity with the stipulations and specifications in the stated documents.   It is not open to the Project Proponents   to   develop   the   land   in  any   other   manner, unless permitted by the State. Taking overall view of the matter, we have no hesitation in 67. allowing the present appeals filed by the Planning Authority and the State of Karnataka and thereby setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court with liberty to the Project Proponents to first approach the State (under Article 7 of the FWA) for its prior permission to allow them to deviate from the stipulations and specifications in the FWA and the PTR.  Upon consideration of such proposal, the competent authority of the State may take appropriate decision in the matter and if need be, obtain prior opinion of the Empowered Committee.   However, this process 109 must be completed in right earnest and no later than six months from the date of submission of the proposal to the competent authority of the State.   If the   decision   is adverse to the Project Proponents, it would be open to them to take recourse to the disputes resolution mechanism in terms of Article 18 of the FWA, if so advised.  Only after prior permission is granted by the State regarding the proposed deviations, the Project Proponents may then apply to the Planning Authority for permission to construct buildings/structures   as   per   the   applicable   town   planning regulations, which be considered on its own merits in accordance with   law   uninfluenced   by   its   earlier   communication   dated 7.2.2015. 68. We leave all other contentions available to concerned parties open to be considered by the concerned forum/Court on their own merits in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order is quashed 69. and set aside and the stated writ petitions filed by the Project Proponents   stand   dismissed   with   liberty   to   the   Project Proponents, as aforesaid.  The appeals are allowed in the above 110 terms.  There shall be no order as to costs.  Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. ..................................J.   (A.M. Khanwilkar) ..................................J. (Dinesh Maheshwari) New Delhi; May 19, 2020.