Mr. P. Shankar Rao vs The Government of A.P. and Others

V. Eswaraiah, J.—The letter dated 22.11.2010 was addressed by one Mr. P. Shankara Rao, M.L.A to the Hon''ble Chief Justice of this Court along with material in the form of a Book, bringing to the notice of the Hon''ble Chief Justice the fraud played by APIIC and EMAAR Properties PJSC and its sister companies.

As per the Endorsement of the Hon''ble Chief Justice dated 23.11.2010 to check and put up as taken up case before this Bench, this writ petition is taken up as a Public Interest Litigation.

We are of the opinion that it is just and proper to extract the orders passed by this Court in this writ petition on various dates viz. 24.11.2010, 08.12.2010 and 27.12.2010;

Order dated 24.11.2010:

This is a taken up case pursuant to the letter dated 22.11.2010 addressed by the sitting M.L.A to the Hon''ble the Chief Justice of the High Court of A.P.

Based on the letter dated 28.10.2010 addressed by the Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, second Respondent herein, to the Chairperson of the U.P.A. Government enclosing the relevant material and the news item published in the Times of India, the letter dated 22.11.2010 was addressed to the Hon''ble the Chief Justice.

It is stated that pursuant to the Government orders in G.O. Ms. No. 359 of Industries & Commerce (INF) Department dated 04.09.2002, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into between APIIC (Sponsor) and EMAAR Properties PJSC for implementation of the integrated project with International Standard - Convention Centre, a Star Hotel with 300 rooms, 18 whole gold courses and multi use Developmental Township including Villas and Commercial Development at Manikonda. The MOU is entered between the APIIC and EMAAR Properties PJSC on 06.11.2002. Collaboration Agreement dated 19.08.2003 entered into between them. Supplementary Agreement dted 19.04.2005 was also entered into between them in deviation to the earlier agreement. Development Agreement dated 03.11.2006 was entered. A joint venture Company in the name of EMAAR Hills Township Private Limited (EHTPL) was formed in 2003 between Dubai based EMAAR Company and APIIC, a State Government Public Sector undertaking to develop and lease Ac.535.00 of land in Gachibowli in the ratio of 74%: 26%. In 2006, the EMAAR, the partner of EHTPL, without the knowledge of the APIIC, another partner of EHTPL in violation of agreement and various Government rules entered into partnership with another company which is a sister concern of EMAAR known as EMAAR MGF Limited to develop the same piece of land at Gachibowli in the ratio of 75%: 25% i.e. EMAAR MGF Limited will hold 75% interest and EHTPL will hold 25% interest. Hence, the stake of APIIC in this project has fallen to 6.5%. Though the APIIC is 26% shareholder of the development, a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 25.07.2007 was entered between EMAAR Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. ignoring the rights of the APIIC to keep the APIIC in dark and out of the business transactions and addendum between Development Agreement-cum-GPA was also executed on 23.07.2008 in a dubious manner to defraud the interests of APIIC.

It is stated that the decision taken by the APIIC Board is against the normal procedure and approval of the Government though the APIIC was appointed as a Nodal authority for execution of this project but not a final decision making authority. The share of APIIC was reduced to 6.5% to benefit EMAAR MGF Limited to about Rs. 2,500/- crores. It is further alleged that not a single rupee has been credited to APIIC so far, but only shown as equity in shares for the amount that is due to APIIC. It is further stated that EMAAR MGF Limited sold the plots for villas at a cheaper rate of Rs. 5,000/- per sq. yard from 2006 onwards though the market value is about Rs. 60,000/- per sq. yard. It is stated that so far only Rs. 85.77 crores were collected and unaccounted amount of Rs. 450/- crores is siphoned off. It is further alleged that as per the original agreement Ac.285.00 would be developed and Ac.235.00 would be used for leasing and the remaining is for lakes etc., but the EMAAR MGF Limited has converted the entire project for development and named that project as EMAAR MGF Land Development Project and it has acquired the right to sell the entire land.

The plans were not at all approved by the Cyberabad Development Authority till today. It is alleged that a fraud has been played and caused loss to the APIIC, which is a Government organization affecting public interest/wealth.

It is further submitted that the opinions of Sri Gopal Subramanium, the Solicitor General of India, Sri Narasimha Murthy, Chartered Accountant and eminent financial adviser, Sri B. Satya Reddy, Senior Company Secretary, Sri S. Ravi, a Senior Advocate and Sri Rohit Jaiswal, Financial Analyst, Singhania and Partners PPP has been prepared by IDFC and iDeck, have obtained about irregularities and illegalities calling advice to take appropriate steps against the EMAAR Properties PJSC as well as against the then officials of APIIC, but so far the State Government has not taken any action to unearth the actual fraud committed by the concerned and to entrust the matter to be investigated into the scandal by C.B.I apart from the measures taken or to be taken.

To resolve the controversy, we are of the opinion that 1) The Government of A.P. represented by its Chief Secretary, 2) Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, represented by its Principal Secretary and 3) The Central Bureau of Investigation, represented by its Director, New Delhi, are required to be added as Respondents Nos. 7 to 9.

Learned Advocate General, takes notice for Respondents Nos. 1, 6 and 7 and Sri B.P. Mohan, learned Counsel, takes notice for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Office to issue urgent notice to Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 8 and 9 returnable in two weeks to show cause as to why appropriate directions for probing into the irregularities and illegalities committed in the matter by the concerned should not be issued.

Post on 08.12.2010.

Order dated 08.12.2010:

Though the order passed by this Court on 24.11.2010 has been dispatched to the Respondents, no appearance is filed on behalf of Respondents Nos. 8 and 9, who are required to be added as Respondents. But, instead of the word "required" to be added, "requested" is erroneously typed. Therefore, the said clerical mistake is required to be corrected. Office also shall carry out the cause title of the taken up writ petition adding Respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9.

Learned Advocate General appearing for Respondents Nos. 1, 6 and 7 submits that certain instructions have been received and requests two weeks time for filing comprehensive counter.

Mr. B.P. Mohan, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 also requests two weeks time for filing counter.

Mr. M. Dhananjay Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5 also requests two weeks time for filing counter. Office to issue urgent notices once again to Respondents Nos. 4, 8 and 9 returnable in ten days by R.P.A.D and also by other permitted means of communications.

In view of the importance of the matter, we request Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned senior counsel to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. Office to furnish all the necessary papers to Sri N. Subba Reddy.

Print the name of Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned senior counsel as Amicus Curiae.

List the matter on 27.12.2010.

Order dated 27.12.2010:

Learned Advocate General, appearing for Respondents Nos. 1, 6 and 7 submits that the counter filed by Respondent No. 7 may be treated as counter of Respondents Nos. 1 and 6 also.

Respondents Nos. 5 and 9 filed separate counters.

Sri S.S. Prasad, learned senior counsel submits that Mr. V. Akshayababu, learned Counsel got instructions for Respondent No. 4 and on his behalf he is appeared. He seeks three weeks time for filing counter positively. Print the name of Mr. V. Akshayababu for Respondent No. 4 who takes notes for Respondent No. 4.

Sri B.P. Mohan, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, though had taken time for two weeks on 08.12.2010 for filing counter he has not filed counter. Again he requested some more time for filing counter.

Sri N. Subba Reddy, Amicus Curiae submits that in connection with the subject matter, the Director of Vigilance, State of Andhra Pradesh made investigation and enquiry and reports are ready, and therefore, the said Director of Vigilance, State of Andhra Pradesh is proper and necessary party to this writ petition.

Accordingly, the Director of Vigilance, State of Andhra Pradesh is suo motu impleaded as Respondent No. 10. The Registry is directed to issue notice to Respondent No. 10 so as to enable him to submit report and file counter.

Post on 24.01.2011 for counters.

Sri Dr. P. Shankar Rao on whose letter dated 22.11.2010 addressed to the Hon''ble the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh this writ petition is taken up, and the subject matter of this writ petition relates to a probe/enquiry by CBI with regard to irregularities and illegalities in allotment of the land by Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of Respondent No. 4. In the said letter a stray allegation has been made with regard to the land allotment and investments in "Sakshi" daily newspaper, but no material has been placed.

Meanwhile, the said Dr. P. Shankar also addressed another letter dated ...11.2010 received by Registry on 09.12.2010 stating that a Member of Parliament, son of former Chief Minister, misused the powers and position of his father in several ways and helped several corporations and individuals by allotting the lands, mines, granting licences etc and amassed huge wealth by way of illegal gratification taking advantage of his position, he being the son of the former Chief Minister. He also stated that the net wealth of said Member of Parliament of Rs. 11 lacs existing by the end of March, 2004 has been multiplied and bulged over Rs. 43,000 crores by resorting to corrupt practices using the high position of his father. He also stated that the said Member of Parliament used several ways and means to bring the money taken through the corrupt practices into white source and furnished the relevant material particulars and annexures, relating to investments received from the Corporates/individuals, details of the companies promoted by him and details of investor companies. He also stated that he routed amounts through hawala and other money laundering routes to tax heaven countries (Mauritius) and bough back the said amounts as investments into his companies at a higher premium. He stated that the said Member of Parliament arranged funds to his friends in abroad through money laundering methods and received back the same as gifts in foreign currencies and claimed them as gifts from relatives and evaded tax on the same.

The scope of this taken up case and the scope of the relief sought to be taken in this present letter dated ....11.2010 is distinct and different on separate cause of actions, requiring to implead various corporations and companies said to have been flouted by him as annexed in Annexures-1 to 3. We therefore of the opinion that this letter requires to be placed before the Hon''ble the Chief Justice for taking appropriate action.

The Registry is directed to place this letter before the Hon''ble the Chief Justice for taking appropriate action.

The Hon''ble Chief Justice also directed to take up the subsequent letter of the M.L.A. P. Shankar Rao dated 26.11.2010 as a separate taken up writ petition and accordingly, it was numbered as W.P. No. 794/2011 and posted before this Bench. Again this Court made the following order on 24.01.2011, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference;

Order dated 24.01.2011:

When the matter came up on 27.12.2010, Sri S.S. Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. V. Akshayababu, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4, sought three weeks time to file counter positively.

Heard learned Advocate General appearing for Respondents 1, 6 and 7 and Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae.

Today, Sri. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned senior counsel, appears on behalf of Mr. V. Akshayababu and advances arguments taking preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, which is taken up at the instance of the letter of the sitting MLA, who is presently a Minister of the State Cabinet.

It is stated that pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others, in Civil Appeal Nos. 1134-1135 of 2002 dated 18.01.2010, the Supreme Court issued certain directions in order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL). As per the said directions, the Courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and cub the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. Pursuant to the said directions, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh amended Rule 7A of the Writ Proceedings Rules and as per the said amended rule, the affidavit filed in support of such petition shall fulfill the requirements under the said Rule.

However, under Rule 7-A (d) notwithstanding anything stated in Rule 7-A (a) to (c) it shall be open to the Court to entertain the writ petition filed in public interest without reference to the interest of the Petitioner in the litigation if the subject matter of the complaint is of such nature as to warrant the adjudication of the case in large public interest.

Sri. N. Subba Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae, submits that in view of the counters filed by the Chief Secretary to Government; APIIC and the Director of Vigilance and Enforcement, there may not be any requirement as of now to insist upon filing of any such affidavit by the Petitioner.

He further states that there is larger public interest involved and deliberate deception misleading the Government and misappropriation of funds causing huge loss to exchequer. He submits that the identity of the MLA and the present Minister, who addressed the letter is not in dispute.

Sri. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned Counsel, seeks time for filing counter taking preliminary objection and later to file a final counter.

We are not inclined to permit the learned Counsel to file counters in piecemeal and moreover, the counsel appearing on earlier occasion undertook to file counter positively.

Sri B.P. Mohan, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 2 and 3 is also directed to file counter.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we grant two (2) weeks time for filing counter. The office is directed to furnish copies of the report filed by the Director General of Vigilance and Enforcement on the request made by any of the parties on payment of usual charges.

List for counters and hearing on 14.02.2011.

It is stated that as against the above said orders dated 23.11.2010. 24.11.2010, 08.12.2010, 27.12.2010 and 24.01.2011 made in this writ petition, the 4th Respondent herein i.e. EMAAR Properties PJSC filed petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 4185-4189/2011 before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The Hon''ble Supreme Court by order dated 10.02.2011 made the following order;

Taken on Board.

We are not inclined to interfere because the special leave petitions have been directed against the interim orders passed by the High Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to request the High Court to decide the question of maintainability of the writ petition before adjudicating the main writ petition. These special leave petitions are disposed of with the aforementioned observations.

Sri L. Nageswararao, learned senior counsel, appearing for the 4th Respondent, advanced arguments to decide the question of maintainability of the writ petition before adjudicating the main writ petition. He submits that the letter dated 22.11.2010 of the Petitioner Mr. P. Shankar Rao, M.L.A ought not to be entertained by this Court by way of conversion as a taken up writ petition. "Epistolary Jurisdiction" of the constitutional Courts is meant only for cases and instances where poor and disadvantaged person or persons in custody can gain access to justice. The present Petitioner is neither poor nor disadvantaged nor a person in custody; on the contrary, now he is a Member of the State Cabinet. He submitted that in the recent judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines as to when the Court should interfere in the public interest litigation (PIL) matters and directed the High Courts to frame Rules. Pursuant to the said directions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the Court must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the Petitioner before entertaining a PIL. The Court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. Court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. Court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. Courts before entertaining PIL, should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive, or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. The Court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.

It is stated that pursuant to the said directions, this Court made amendment to the Writ Proceedings Rules, inserting Rule-7A, vide Notification No. 11/2010. As per Rule 7A, every writ petition filed in public interest shall be heard by a Bench of the two Judges, and every writ petition filed by public interest shall conform to the procedure prescribed under Rule-7A(b)(i) to (vii). Rule-7A (d) is extracted as follows:

Rule-7A(d):Notwithstanding what is stated in these rules, it shall be open to the Court to entertain a writ petition filed in public interest without reference to the interest of the Petitioner(s) in the litigation if the subject matter of the complaint is of such nature as to warrant the adjudication of the case in larger public interest.

As per Rule-7A(b)(i) to (vii) certain precautions need to be taken i.e. giving the particulars of the Petitioner, identity, accompanied by necessary material documents and also shall set out the source of information gathered indicating the authenticity of such information etc. and also undertake to pay exemplary costs and/or compensatory damages as directed by the Court.

Under Rule-7A(b)(vii), in the event of the Court comes to the conclusion in the writ petition filed in Public Interest Litigation was motivated by any extraneous/or ulterior motives, or without bona Fides, it shall be open to the Court to impose exemplary costs as well as compensatory damages to be paid to such effected party.

The learned senior counsel Sri L. Nageswara Rao submits that this is not a writ petition filed as PIL, but was taken up on a letter of the M.L.A who is presently the Member of the Cabinet, bringing various facts to the notice of this Court. The material annexed to the letter dated 22.11.2010 from which it is clear that the motive with which the Petitioner has approached this Court is not bona fide and that he is fighting a political battle making this Court as a platform. He contends that the Petitioner has not made any attempt either to file a criminal case by approaching the Magistrate or had even asked the Government to have the matter investigated into. He contends that in the case of S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and Others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that whatever has been done by the executive should be pursued with the Government and the Court cannot be asked to discharge the functions of the executives. The Petitioner through his letter dated 22.11.2010 requested for CBI investigation in the matter. The Government in its capacity can request CBI to conduct investigation. Without the consent of the Government, the matter cannot be referred to CBI and in extraordinary cases only, this Court can refer the matter to CBI.

He contends that the Petitioner relied on various commercial agreements between APIIC, EMAAR Properties PJSC and its co-developers and made allegations as if a big fraud was involved causing loss to the property of the Government affecting public interest. It is stated that the letter addressed to the Hon''ble Chief Justice requesting to take up the matter in public interest and order CBI enquiry in the said allegations and he offered to produce more evidence to the Court. It is stated that the said letter addressed to the Hon''ble Chief Justice is based on the letter addressed by the Chairman of APIIC to different people for CBI enquiry. It is stated that the material placed in book form contains letter of the Chairman, APIIC to Smt. Sonia Gandhi of UPA Government requesting her to order thorough enquiry by CBI into the scam and fraud committed by EMAAR Properties PJSC, Dubai and EMAAR MGF Limited. It is stated that the UPA Chairperson cannot order for investigation by CBI and there is no material placed before this Court warranting to order to be investigated by CBI and therefore, the present writ petition is not public interest litigation, but is political interest litigation. The Petitioner wants his moment of glory by approaching this Court for CBI investigation and the sequel to the letter is only giving all details of various transactions between various companies involved.

He further contends that the Petitioner is neither poor nor disadvantaged nor a person in custody, and the letters dated 22.11.2010 and 26.11.2010 written by the Petitioner are only to take political advantage keeping in view of the resignation of Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Member of the Parliament and son of the former Chief Minister to the party and to the membership of his office and to Lok Sabha Membership. Petitioner would have filed a writ petition in public interest indicating source of information as to how he got the documents annexed to the letter dated 22.11.2010. The person who comes to the Court with mala fide motives has to be thrown out of the Court and the letter dated 22.11.2010 ought not to have been entertained by way of a conversion as a taken up writ petition. He relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of " Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Sampat Lal and Others, and M.C. Mehta and another Vs. Union of India and others, in support of his contentions.

The learned senior counsel further submits that this case is an instance of "Public Interest Litigation" that ought not to be entertained, as the allegations against the political rivals in letter dated 22.11.2010 and subsequent letter received by the High Court Registry on 09.12.2010 indicate that this litigation was intended to settle political scores and unleash the private vendetta, and the very fact that the Petitioner relies upon internal communications between APIIC Chairman and a political party leader as the basis to institute these proceedings smacks of ulterior motive, keeping in mind the political climate in the State. He relies on the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of S.K. Kantha v. Qamarulla Islam and Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 7674-7675/2002, Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 28 para-6, and Kansing Kalusing Thakore and Others Vs. Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai and Others, in support of his contentions.

On the other hand, Sri N. subba Reddy, learned senior counsel, who is appointed as Amicus Curiae in this writ petition contends that this Court has got ample power and jurisdiction with regard to the maintainability of PIL on the basis of letters. He states that the taken up writ petition on the basis of the letter is maintainable. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra and Others, , wherein the writ petition was entertained on the allegations that (i) the land plots were given to 5th Respondent therein at different places in the State without issuing any notice, inviting bids and at value far below the market price of those land plots; (ii) the allotment was made without following any norms or procedure, and (iii) the action of the State Government caused heavy loss to the State, the action was based on political considerations and was, therefore, mala fide. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in para-26 of the said judgment held that in certain cases even though the Court comes to the conclusion that the writ petition was not in public interest, yet if it finds that there is scope for dealing with the matter further in greater public interest, it can be done. This can be done by keeping the writ Petitioner out of picture and appointing an Amicus Curiae. This can only be done in exceptional cases like the present and not in routine manner. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Narain and others Vs. Union of India and another, The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the said case while directing the CBI and other Government agencies to expedite their action to complete the task of account as great public interest was involved in the said matter and observed that the concept of equality enshrined in the constitution and the basic tenet of rule of law "Be you ever so high, the law is above you". Investigation into every accusation made against each and every person on a reasonable basis, irrespective of the position and status of that person, must be conducted and completed expeditiously. This is imperative to retain before confidence in the impartial working of the Government agencies.

He placed reliance in the case of State of West Bengal and Others Vs. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others, , where the Hon''ble Supreme Court after final analysis answered the questions referred to, that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article-226 of India to CBI to investigate in a non-cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. In the case of Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and Others Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Another, the Hon''ble Supreme Court said that an order directing an enquiry by CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to a conclusion that such material does discloses a prima facie case, calling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency. As per the aforesaid judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the CBI enquiry could be ordered without the permission of the State Government by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India.

A counter is filed by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Andhra Pradesh submitting that the Government of Andhra Pradesh with an intention to establish integrated project with an international standard convention centre, a star hotel with 300 rooms, 18 whole golf course and multi-use developmental township, including Villas and commercial development at Manikonda as a major tourism-cum-business infrastructure asset to the State and designated APIIC as the Nodal Agency. The 4th Respondent-EMAAR Properties PJSC, Dubai was selected as the Developer of the integrated project by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O. Ms. No. 359 Industries and Commerce dated 04.09.2002, as a preferred bidder (Developer), authorised the APIIC as Nodal Agency and to enter into MOU for implementation of the project and directed to closely monitor the implementation of the project. In the said G.O. it was decided to develop the integrated project under two Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) Companies i.e. SPV-I to develop golf course and multi-use project in an extent of 535 acres of land at Manikonda village with an equity of 26% to APIIC and 74% to the Developer. The Memorandum of Understanding was executed between APIIC and EMAAR Properties PJSC (Developer) on 06.11.2002. In the line with the MOU, a Collaboration Agreement, as approved by the Cabinet Sub-Committee was executed between Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on 19.08.2003. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 14 Industries and Commerce Department (INF) dated 11.01.2005 and G.O. Ms. No. 22 Industries and Commerce Department (INF) dated 27.01.2005 revising certain items of G.O. Ms. No. 359. The revised structure and the project components are as follows;

a) Development of Township Project at Manikonda village, under SPV-I called Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. (EHTPL). An extent of Ac.258.36 was transferred by Conveyance Deed on sale basis. The land rate was fixed at Rs. 29,00,000-00 (Rupees twenty nine lakh only) per acre;

b) Development of Golf Course, Golf Club, Resort Hotel etc at Manikonda village under SPV-2 called M/s. Boulder Hills Leisure Pvt. Ltd.(BHLPL). An extent of Ac.235 for Golf Course on lease basis and Ac. 17.00 for Boutique Hotel, on sale basis;

c) Development of Convention Centre (6000 sitting) and Business Hotel at NAC grounds, Izzatnagar under SPV-3 called M/s. Cyberabad Convention Centre Pvt. Ltd.(CCCPL) an extent of Ac. 15.139 on lease basis.

The equity structure in each above SPV, APIIC holding is 26% and EMAAR Properties PJSC holding is 74%. The equity from APIIC is in the form of land at the rate of Rs. 29 lakh per acre for the township project i.e. Ac.285.00 in EHTPL.

11 (i). Accordingly, a Supplementary Agreement was entered into by APIIC and EMAAR Properties PJSC on 19.04.2005. As per the Collaboration Agreement, the Developer has to design develop, finance, operate and manage the integrated project with facilitation from APIIC, that the developer shall undertake the project development including design, project management, finance, implementation and operation of integrated project. Some of the applications of the Developer among the other under the Collaboration Agreement, the APIIC equity stake always remains at 26% in all the three SP v. and the holdings of APIIC of 26% have to be maintained at all times. As per Clause-3.1(iii) of the Collaboration Agreement, the joint venture companies shall not enter any agreement or arrangement with any person without prior written consent of the parties which means prior written consent of APIIC. As per Clause-9.1 of Shareholders Agreement, the EHTPL has to take affirmative approval of. APIIC for reduction of share capital or issue of fresh capital of the company and also for declaration or payment of any dividend or distribution of profits or passing of any resolution to retain or allocate profits. It is stated that the Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd.(EHTPL) has not completed the project, though the land was transferred and the APIIC has to get 26% share in the profit, but so far APIIC has not got any amount and the company is stating that it is under loss.

11 (ii). It is further stated that SPV-EHTPL without approval of APIIC transferred the project land of Ac.285.00 together with all rights including that of the marketing, branding etc. to EMAAR MGF Limited by executing, initially the Development Agreement dated 03.11.2006 (later cancelled), Development Agreement-cum-GPA on 25.07.2007 in supersession of the earlier Development Agreement, and Addendum to the Development Agreement-cum-GPA dated 23.07.2008. It is stated that EHTPL has no authority to execute all the Development Agreements with the EMAAR MGF Limited without prior approval of APIIC and the Government. As per the provisions of MOU dated 06.11.2002, Collaboration Agreement dated 19.08.2003 and the Supplementary Agreement dated 19.04.2005 without the prior written consent of APIIC, the Development rights shall not be transferred by the EMAAR Properties PJSC, Dubai/4th Respondent to other company and it has no authority to do so. The 4th Respondent has no authority to assign its rights to any third party as EHTPL is implementing company set up for development of the project as per the agreements between APIIC and the 4th Respondent. EHTPL being a SPV between APIIC and the 4th Respondent shall implement the project on its own. In the guise of the Development Agreement-cum-GPA with EMAAR MGF Limited, the whole project land on back to back basis has been transferred by EHTPL. With this act, the very purpose of setting up of SPV between APIIC and EMAAR Properties PJSC, Dubai was defeated. As per the Development Agreement-cum-GPA between EHTPL and EMAAR MGF Limited, the commercial terms of the Development Agreement between EHTPL and EMAAR MGF Limited, EMAAR MGF Limited will receive the entire revenue from the sale of land, villas, apartments, commercial space and IT space and the said revenue, and the 75% gross revenue will go to the EMAAR MGF Limited and 25% will go to EHTPL, 95% from the commercial leases/hotels will go to EMAAR MGF Limited, and 5% will go to EHTPL, 75% from the sale of plots and villas and their construction and 75% from operations and maintenance, and from advertisements in common areas will go to EMAAR MGF Limited and 25% will go to EHTPL Only a small percentage of gross revenue i.e. 5% to 25% will go to EHTPL.

11 (iii). It is further stated that the EMAAR Properties PJSC entered into Agency Agreement on 29.01.2005 with M/s. Stylish Homes Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of SPV-1 for selling of villa plots in the integrated project. The arrangement was never brought to the notice of APIIC and never even placed before the Board of SPV-1 for approval. In view of the above, the APIIC got the issue examined through legal experts and the Financial Advisors, and Chartered Accountants including the learned Solicitor General Sri Gopal Subramanium who has suggested the course of action to be taken in the matter. The reports and opinions so obtained were forwarded to the Government for further directions. The Government examined the matter in detail with reference to the reports received and came to the conclusion that there are violations of Agreements by EMAAR Properties PJSC and related companies. The APIIC has been directed to take immediate necessary action to ensure the compliance with the MOU and agreements signed. The APIIC was also requested to initiate action for protecting the interests of APIIC by following due procedure and ensure that the legal and financial interest of APIIC are fully and properly protected. Accordingly, the APIIC in its Board Meeting held on 19.10.2010 resolved to issue a notice under Article-5 of the Collaboration Agreement to 4th Respondent to rectify breaches done under various agreements executed between APIIC including the Collaboration Agreement, that to file a civil suit in appropriate Civil Court to get the declaration that the Development-cum-GPA between EHTPL is null and void; that to initiate an appropriate legal action in the Company Law Board for oppression and mismanagement, that authorising Managing Director to take all necessary and appropriate steps to safeguard the interests of APIIC and to place before the next board meeting for rectification, and that to get opinion from the senior advocate who has expertise in criminal law on the issue of initiating criminal proceedings against the persons involved in the actions that resulted in the depletion in value of EHTPL.

11 (iv). In order to protect the interests of APIIC and the public at large, APIIC has issued notice to EMAAR Properties PJSC, Dubai dated 29.10.2010 under Clause-53(a) of the Collaboration Agreement asking, them to rectify various violations/breaches within a period of 60 days. An interim reply was only received. A detailed reply is yet to be received and till date no action/corrective measures were initiated by EMAAR Properties PJSC. So a Civil Suit in O.S. 655/2010 has been filed on the file of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad against EMAAR MGF Limited seeking permanent injunction and for rendition of accounts. The EMAAR MGF Limited filed I.A. for rejection of the plaint which was dismissed. An order of status quo was granted with regard to title of the property on 15.12.2010 by the City Civil Court. A Company Petition was also filed by APIIC before the Company Law Board in C.P. 108/2010, and by order dated 21.12.2010 the Company Law Board directed the EMAAR MGF Limited and its subordinates which includes Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd., EMAAR Properties PJSC, Dubai and Emaar Holdings not to create any third party interest in the integrated golf course and township project at Manikonda. Thus, it is stated that APIIC has already initiated necessary action as per the legal opinion of the experts. It is further stated that the Vigilance and Enforcement Department of the State Government is also enquiring into the matter. Thus, it is stated that the Government and APIIC have taken necessary steps to protect the interests of the Government, APIIC and public at large in the matter.

The 5th Respondent-Hyderabad Metro Development Authority filed counter stating that APIIC vide its letter dated 07.06.2006 enclosed application from Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Boulder Hills Leisure Pvt. Ltd. for approval of lay out for the proposed integrated township and golf course with Boutique Hotel Project on an extent of Ac.531.36 in Manikonda, Gachibowli and Nanakramguda of Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. It is stated that the Government changed the land use as part of the residential, part of recreational, and part of commercial use excluding water body area, for the integrated township and golf course and also exempted conversion charge to a tune of Rs. 2,65,43,707-00 vide G.O. Ms. No. 894 MA dated 02.11.2005. The APIIC was requested to pay a sum of Rs. 24,95,97,269-00 towards Development charges, processing charges, value addition charges and publication charges and also Rs. 12,50,000-00 towards compounding fee for undertaking development activity i.e. construction of three buildings i.e. two office buildings and one golf club building, but the Government vide its orders in G.O. Ms. No. 879 MA dated 05.12.2007 has exempted the project from payment of Rs. 24,73,28,163-00 towards development and value addition charges. Thereafter, Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Boulder Hills Leisure Pvt. Ltd have paid Rs. 22,69,106-00 towards processing fee and Rs. 12,50,000-00 as compounding fee to the erstwhile CDA. After technical approval of the draft lay out plan with certain conditions, the same was forwarded to the Zonal Commissioner, West Zone, GHMC and Executive Officers/Sarpanch, Manikonda Gram Panchayat as well as to APIIC, but the Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Boulder Hills Leisure Pvt. Ltd. submitted a revised lay out to HMDA vide letter dated 21.06.2010 enclosing the revised plans requesting for approval of revised lay out and extension of time for lay out development.

A formal counter is filed on behalf of 9th Respondent stating that CBI was already overburdened with the investigation of several anti-corruption cases like disproportionate assets, trapping cases, bank fraud cases, abuse of official position cases, special cases and other cases including the cases entrusted by the State Government i.e. Satyam Computers scam case and cases pertaining to M/s. Obulapuram Mining Ore, Railway Recruitment scam etc. It is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O. Ms. No. 550 Home (SC-A) Department dated 21.02.1990 has accorded consent to all the Members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) i.e. CBI to exercise powers and jurisdiction under the DSPE Act in the State of Andhra Pradesh in respect of offences punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The 9th Respondent further submitted that infrastructure and man power of CBI are very limited and further CBI humbly requests that the High Court may kindly issue appropriate orders in view of the above stated reasons.

The 10th Respondent-Director General of Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ex-Officio Principal Secretary to Government filed a counter along with a preliminary vigilance report dated 10.01.2011. It is stated that on getting information that there have been irregularities in execution of the integrated township project which was given to the 4th Respondent, the enquiry was taken up in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 504 General Administration (V & E-A) Department dated 25.11.1997 regarding single directive of Vigilance and Enforcement Department wherein it is stipulated that Vigilance and Enforcement is an agency which was constituted in G.O. Ms. No. 269 G.A.(SC-D) Department dated 11.06.1985 by the Government to conduct enquiries/investigation into specific allegations affecting public interest and to take effective measures through its own machinery and with the help of other vigilance bodies, organisations and departments of the Government to achieve objectives of prevention of leakage of revenue due to the Government, detection and misuse or wastage of Government funds, resources materials and properties, prevention of loss of State wealth etc. It is stated that the facts elicited in the course of enquiry are annexed as interim report along with relevant documents.

As per the Vigilance Interim Report dated 10.01.2011 the Director General, Vigilance and Enforcement stated that 18 plots were blocked from sale by showing falsely that they have been given to companies, MOU/allotment date is shown as 16.06.2006, but the said companies were not in existence. But in fact, the plots were allotted to the companies on a single date i.e. 22.03.2010. When the allotments were made on 16.06.2006 payments were received on 22.03.2010 and no reason is forthcoming for the said act. Therefore, it is stated that it cannot happen unless the plots are in the name of benami/non-existing companies and the said companies came into existence only in February 2010. The plots were allotted in the name of non-existed companies. This is an act of misappropriation, cheating, forgery and falsification of records in order to grab the Government property and also for diversion of funds. It is stated that there is a well planned conspiracy to project failure of the project. When the Development Agreement was executed on 03.11.2006, it is not clear how the employees of EMAAR MGF Limited have acquired the plots through EMAAR MGF Limited on 16.06.2006. It is revealed during course of enquiry that plots were on paper allotted to employees of EMAAR MGF Limited even prior to the induction of EMAAR MGF Limited into the project which shows the necessity for thorough examination of the books and accounts of all companies about the flow of funds. It is indicative of corporate conspiracy which is deep rooted and requires elaborate investigation including flow of funds to Dubai and where Emaar holding is based. The enquiry was conducted with regard to Delhi Companies in whose favour plots were allotted and on verification it was found that the said companies are fictitious. All the companies were either acquired from unknown persons or floated in February 2010 in whose favour plots were allotted. The employees were unable to explain source of funds acquired to purchase the properties. Except for the single transaction of taking villa plot, these companies have not done any business and they have no financial capacity to do any business. All the sale transactions were done by EMAAR MGF Limited office at Delhi. There is no record available with either EHTPL or M/s. Stylist Homes relating to these transactions. The concerned persons of the companies at Delhi were examined and on verification of the records it was revealed that all plots were booked on 22.03.2010 and entered into MOU on 01.06.2010 and all of them requested for cancellation in the same month when the enquiry has been started by APIIC with regard to the irregularities committed by the 4th Respondent. It is stated that the plots were sold at lesser price and the EMAAR MGF Limited erroneously showing the losses.

The 4th Respondent EMAAR properties PJSC also filed counter dated 07.02.2011 pursuant to the earlier directions before disposal of SLP by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. It submitted preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the letter as a taken up writ petition as a public interest litigation. The sum and substance of the counter was already covered in the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel Sri L. Nageswara Rao appearing for the 4th Respondent.

The 4th Respondent also enclosed an order of this Court in Crl.R.C. No. 1696/2000 dated 21.09.2010, an order of this Court dated 23.12.2010 in WPMP. No. 41023/2010 in W.P. No. 32285/2010 and an order of a learned single Judge of this Court in CRP. 5786/2010 filed by EMAAR MGF Limited and EMAAR Properties PJSC against APIIC and the details of these three orders will be dealt later.

A counter is filed on behalf of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. APIIC on 24.01.2011. The APIIC while admitting the letter and the documents furnished along with the letter of the Petitioner, submits that the three Special Purpose Vehicles (SP Vs) belonging to the EMAAR Properties PJSC-4th Respondent have equity of 74% and APIIC have 26% in M/s. Boulder Hills Leisure Pvt. Ltd, Cyberabad Convention Centre and Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. The value of the land cost is Rs. 29 lakh per acre was converted into equity of APIIC in all SPV companies. Similar admissions were made as was stated by the Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh and stated that the agreements were entered by Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. without the knowledge or approval of APIIC in favour of EMAAR MGF Limited and is without any authority and in violation of the agreed terms entered with APIIC for development of the integrated project. The illegal agreements also enable the EMAAR MGF Limited to retain 75% to 95% of the revenue from the sales and the leases of the properties in the project and only 5% to 25% is to be received by EHTPL. This has been done to cause undue benefit to the EMAAR Properties PJSC at the cost of APIIC since the EMAAR MGF Limited itself has substantially holding by EMAAR Properties PJSC. The Agency Agreement dated 29.01.2005 said to have been entered into by the 4th Respondent with M/s. Stylish Homes Pvt. Ltd. for selling the villas plots in the integrated project was concealed till 02.09.2010. The said agreement was even prior to entering into the Shareholder Agreement and before the transfer of the land by APIIC to EHTPL. The proposal of the EMAAR Properties PJSC vide its letter dated 02.05.2005 requesting the APIIC to consider to allow Fairbridge Holdings Ltd., an associate of EMAAR MGF Limited group, India to take 34% of the equity out of 74% Emaar holdings in all three SP v. including EHTPL was rejected by APIIC and informed that till the completion of the project the shareholdings of the three SP v. should not be changed. Having failed to get the approval form APIIC a new game plan was hatched by the EMAAR Properties PJSC and brought its own group company EMAAR MGF Limited as Developer into the project and transferred all the project land including development rights in the guise of Development Agreement-cum-GPA. The entire thing appears to be a methodology to siphon the funds out of Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. thereby depriving the shareholders of EHTPL especially APIIC of its share of monies and the said Development Agreement is designed only to enrich the EMAAR Properties PJSC at the cost of APIIC.

That apart grave violations resulting in loss to the APIIC and there is no transparency in the matter regarding sale of villas. EMAAR MGF Limited has shown to sell the villa plots at Rs. 5,000/- per sq. yard as against the prevailing market value of about Rs. 14,000/- per sq. yard. Thus, the major part of sale consideration was taken away by EMAAR MGF Limited in cash from the buyers and misappropriated by EMAAR Properties PJSC to itself through the new substantially holding company, causing further and huge financial loss to APIIC and defraud the Corporation. So far the APIIC has not received a single rupee from the township project. The EHTPL without prior permission of APIIC has stood corporate guarantee to enable the EMAAR MGF Limited to avail the loan of Rs. 150 crores from the Axis Bank Ltd. by depositing the title deeds of the lands which shows that even EMAAR MGF Limited did not have financial capacity to undertake the project. In view of the said Development Agreement-cum-GPA the Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. has become a sort of defunct company as practically the entire net worth stands transferred to EMAAR MGF Limited and as 26% of the share of APIIC is denuded by playing fraud on the APIIC. The set up of all the companies by the 4th Respondent shows that the Senior Executive of EMAAR MGF Limited, Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. are the same persons i.e. Mr. Srikanth Joshi is the Chief Executive Officer of both EMAAR MGF Limited and Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, Mr. Vijay Raghav is the Finance Head (South) of both the said companies.

It is stated that APIIC after obtaining the legal advices and opinions with regard to the violations committed by the 4th Respondent, the expert opinions were forwarded to the Government and the Government has directed the APIIC to take immediate action to ensure compliance with the MOU and the agreements signed. The APIIC in its Board Meeting held on 19.10.2010 resolved to take various steps including to get the opinion from Senior Advocate who has expertise in criminal law on the issue to initiate criminal proceedings against the persons involved in the actions that resulted in depletion of under value of EHTPL. In order to protect the interests of APIIC and the public at large, it is stated that APIIC has already taken the steps by issuing a notice dated 29.10.2010 to the 4th Respondent calling upon it to rectify breaches within the stipulated time of 60 days and interim reply was received, thereafter the EMAAR Properties PJSC-4th Respondent filed W.P. 32285/2010 and a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 23.12.2010 restrained APIIC from terminating the agreement pending further orders. A civil suit was filed against EMAAR MGF Limited seeking permanent injunction and for rendition of accounts, and against the interim order passed in the civil suit, the EMAAR MGF Limited filed CRP. 5786/2010 and obtained stay of all further proceedings in the suit on 16.12.2010. An application was filed before the Company Law Board at Chennai regarding oppression and mismanagement against EMAAR Properties PJSC, Emaar holdings and Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. The Company Law Board vide its order dated 21.12.2010 directed the Respondents therein not to create any third party interests without prior permission of the board. It is stated that opinion on the initiation of criminal action has also been obtained by senior advocate dealing with criminal matters and the opinion has been placed before the APIIC and accordingly, criminal complaint is being prepared. It is stated that APIIC also has been taking necessary steps to protect the interests of the Government and public at large in the matter, and further submitted that the additional facts, documents or any other relevant/required information in due course shall be submitted to the Court.

Sri N. Subba Reddy, the Amicus Curiae submits that APIIC has got 26% share in all three SP Vs, but by reason of entering into the Development Agreement-cum-GPA in favour of EMAAR MGF Limited by the 4th Respondent transferring its entire rights, the share of APIIC has been fallen to 6.5% as stated by the Petitioner in his letter. It is stated that the value of the land was hopelessly under valued, but in fact as per the valuation report of the Government registered approved valuer dated 25.01.2007 the actual value of Ac.531.98 is Rs. 26,52,02,66,960/-calculating @ Rs. 10,300/- per sq. yard. It is stated that as per the Collaboration Agreement dated 19.08.2003 entered into by APIIC in favour of the 4th Respondent-EMAAR Properties PJSC the share of APIIC is 26%. Thereafter, the Government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 22 Industries and Commerce (IP) Department dated 27.01.2005 duly affecting certain modifications in certain clauses of G.O. Ms. No. 14 Industries and Commerce (IP) Department dated 11.01.2005. Thereafter, the APIIC entered into a Shareholders Agreement with Emaar Holdings and Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. dated ....12.2005 and Supplementary Agreement dated 19.04.2005, followed by Deed of Conveyance dated 28.12.2005 by APIIC in favour of Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. in respect of Ac.258.36 of land for aggregating value of Rs. 74,92,44,000/- and the agreement that Emaar Hills. Township Pvt. Ltd. agreed to allot and issue equity shares equivalent to 26% i.e. for an amount of Rs. 1,70,03,070/- and accordingly the Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. executed the Debenture Deed dated.....12.2005. Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. entered into Agency Agreement with Stylish Homes Real Estate on 21.09.2005 i.e. even before conveyance as well as Debenture Deed. Thereafter, the Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. entered into the Development Agreement dated 03.11.2006 with EMAAR MGF Limited describing itself as owner and EMAAR MGF Limited as a Developer stating that Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. is the absolute owner of Ac.258.36 free from all encumbrances transferring all its rights to develop, sale the land and thereafter, Development Agreement-cum-GPA was entered by EHTPL on 25.07.2007 in favour of EMAAR MGF Limited authorising the EMAAR MGF Limited to develop the project as per its design and there is no any mention about the share of entitlement of APIIC. Thus, the Government, APIIC as well as the Director General of Vigilance and Enforcement all stated that the share of APIIC by virtue of the said Development-cum-GPA entered into by EHTPL in favour of EMAAR MGF Limited the share of the APIIC has been fallen down and it has not received a single pie towards its share.

The EMAAR Properties PJSC filed W.P. 32285/2010 seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declare the notice dated 29.10.2010 issued by APIIC as arbitrary and illegal, and to direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh to constitute a Conciliation Board, as provided u/s 32 of the A.P. Infrastructure Development Enabling Act, 2001 (Act 36/2001), directing the APIIC to refer all the issues raised in the letter dated 29.10.2010 to the Conciliation Board, and restrain APIIC not to give effect to the termination notice dated 29.10.2010 issued and to restrain APIIC from initiating any judicial proceedings. A learned single Judge of this Court by Order dated 23.12.2010 restrained APIIC from terminating the Collaboration Agreement pending further orders in WPMP. 41023/2010 in WP. 32285/2010.

18 (i). The APIIC filed suit O.S. 655/2010 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against EMAAR MGF Limited having its office at F3, 1st floor, ANR centre, Road No. 1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-4, represented by its authorised signatory Sri G.V. Vijay Raghav, S/o. G. Hara Gopal Kirshna, resident of 313, My Home Mount View Apartments, Navodaya Colony, Yellareddiguda, Hyderabad to account for all the monies it has received, or ought to receive from every party with which it had any transactions regarding any lands included in the suit schedule property of Ac.258.36 gts in respect of dealings by way of sales, agreements of sale or any other document creating charge or mortgage or any liability to pay monies on such properties in favour of any third parties; and to grant permanent injunction against EMAAR MGF Limited from dealing with, encumbering, selling, transferring, parting or in any other manner, and obtained an order of status quo with regard to the suit schedule property in I.A. 3941/2010. In the said suit the EMAAR MGF Limited filed I.A. 3988/2010 for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule-11 CPC and the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissed the said I.A. by order dated 08.12.2010, against which the EMAAR MGF Limited filed CRP. 5786/2010, and a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 16.12.2010 in CRPMP. 7711/2010 granted interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S. 655/2010.

18 (ii). The APIIC also filed a Company Petition being CP. No. 108/2010 before the Company Law Board, Chennai against Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. and the Company Law Board directed the Respondents therein to seek permission of the Company Law Board before creating any third party interest in the remaining landed properties of the Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd.

18 (iii). It is stated that a Practicing Advocate filed a complaint against EMAAR Properties PJSC u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure. to refer the complaint to the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. alleging that the EMAAR Properties PJSC and EMAAR MGF Limited in collusion with the former Chairman and Vice-Chairman/Secretary of APIIC etc have processed and allotted the land, plots to various persons by illegal means and in violation of the regulations and norms of APIIC attracting the offences under Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B IPC and as the averments made in the complaint and record produced and the facts disclose the cognizable offences, hence forwarded the same to the Director General, ACB u/s 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. for investigation and report by order dated 07.09.2010. As against the said order, the EMAAR MGF Limited as well as EMAAR Properties PJSC filed Crl.R.C. Nos. 1696/2010 and 1780/2010 respectively on the file of this Court and a learned single Judge of this Court granted interim stay of the order dated 07.09.2010.

The learned Counsel appearing for APIIC, State as well as the Amicus Curiae submit that the EMAAR MGF Limited, EMAAR Properties PJSC are not allowing the legal course of action to be taken, obviously feeling that they are liable for all the civil and criminal actions. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that it is the former Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of APIIC, EMAAR Properties PJSC as well as EMAAR MGF Limited have committed several irregularities as well as criminal offences causing loss running into several crores of rupees to APIIC affecting the public interest at large. It is stated that there was no any check or control at the relevant point of time to curb the irregularities and the criminal offences committed by the concerned. When there was a change in the post of the Chairman and the Managing Director, these irregularities and fraud played by the concerned are unearthed. Thus, it is stated that this Court has rightly taken up the letter of the Petitioner as a Writ Petition in public interest litigation. It is further stated that the letter filed by the MLA is not disputed and merely because he became as a Cabinet Minister after filing the letter, it cannot be said that the letter is filed for personal gain or for private motive or for political motivation or for any other oblique considerations. It is further stated that the Hon''ble Supreme Court entertained any number of cases as public interest litigation based on the letters, the following are some of the cases.

Dr. Upendra Baxi (I) Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another,

Mrs. Veena Sethi Vs. State of Bihar and Others,

Citizens for Democracy Vs. State of Assam and Others,

It is not the case of the 4th Respondent that the letter is an anonymous or pseudomonas and the bona fides of the Petitioner are not in dispute. As the public interest at large is involved, it cannot be said that the letter is not bona fide. It is stated that this Court, after satisfactory verification of the relevant documents, was inclined to take up the letter of the Petitioner as a taken up writ petition in public interest litigation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ Petitioner has no locus standi or that the writ petition is not maintainable. In view of the magnitude of the fraud involved and the scope of the investigation required to be made, it is stated that only CBI will be in a position to make a comprehensive investigation as suggested by the Director, Vigilance an Enforcement Department. It is stated that irrespective of the interests of the Petitioner, the subject matter of the complaint involves larged public interest warranting adjudication of the case.

The question that arises for consideration as to whether this taken up writ petition is maintainable as public interest litigation, warranting adjudication in larger public interest.

Since comprehensive pleadings, as referred to above are filed by the parties, evidently, this matter requires a detailed hearing on merits of the respective contentions of the parties subject to maintainability. In order to answer the maintainability of the writ petition, we will not go into a detailed analysis of the contentions, but propose to decide the said aspect on prima facie satisfaction of the Court for entertaining this writ petition.

The decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors. (1 supra) has comprehensively traced evaluation of public interest litigation in India and divided various categories of the public interest litigations into three phases, which are extracted hereunder:

� Phase-I:It deals with cases of this Court where directions and orders were passed primarily to protect fundamental rights under Article 21 of the marginalized groups and sections of the society who because of extreme poverty, illiteracy and ignorance cannot approach this Court or the High Courts.

� Phase-II: It deals with the cases relating to protection, preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife, mountains, rivers, historical monuments etc.

� Phase-III: It deals with the directions issued by the Courts in maintaining the probity, transparency and integrity in governance.

We are of the prima facie opinion that the present case would fall under Phase-III, where this Court is concerned with maintaining the probity, transparency and integrity in governance. In paragraphs Nos. 106 to 110 of the judgment of the aforesaid, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has referred to its earlier decisions which throw considerable light on the ambit and scope of such public interest litigation vis-a-vis the powers of this Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India as well as that of the Hon''ble Supreme Court under Article-32 of the Constitution of India where the various orders, directions and judgments were issued to unearth corruption and maintain probity and morality in the governance of the State. The APIIC whose land is in question in this matter is undoubtedly an agency/instrumentality of the State of Andhra Pradesh. APIIC has been admittedly entrusted with the responsibility as a Nodal Agency for implementation of the project in question and the said Nodal Agency was required to closely monitor the implementation of the project. The allegations in the letter of the then MLA, which forms the basis of entertainment of this PIL shows that the said valuable asset of the State is allowed to be exploited by the 4th Respondent and its sister companies to the detriment of the people at large.

In Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, the scope of entertaining a petition styled as Public Interest Litigation and locus standi of the Petitioner was considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and it has laid down that the Court has to be satisfied about (a) credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite and also shows gravity and seriousness involved and seeks to avoid public mischief.

In Rajiv Ranjan Singh ''Lalan'' and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, it was held that "The test which one has to apply to decide the maintainability of the PIL concerns sufficiency of the Petitioner''s interest. Under this test it is necessary to consider the subject matter to which the PIL relates. It is wrong in law for the court to judge the applicant''s interest without looking at the subject matter of his complaint. If the Petitioner shows failure of public duty, the court would be in error in dismissing his PIL The question of sufficient interest of the Petitioner cannot be considered in the abstract. It must be taken together with the legal and factual context."

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (UOI) (3 supra) the Hon''ble Supreme Court has also laid down that even if conditions required for issuance of, one of the high prerogative writs are not fulfilled, the Court would not be constrained to fold its hands in despair and plead its inability to help the citizens who has come before it for judicial redress.

With regard to power of judicial review by this Court, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of W.B. v. Committee for protection of Democratic Rights(12 supra) has laid down the legal position which is apt to be extracted:

As regards the power of judicial review conferred on the High Court, undoubtedly they are, in a way, wider in scope. The High Courts are authorized under Article 226 of the Constitution, to issue directions, orders or writs to any person or authority, including any government to enforce fundamental rights and, "for any other purpose". It is manifest from the difference in the phraseology of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution that there is a marked difference in the nature and purpose of the right conferred by these two Articles. Whereas the right guaranteed by Article 32 can be exercised only for the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution, the right conferred by Article 226 can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but " for any other purpose" as well, i.e. for enforcement of any legal right conferred by a Statute etc.

36 In Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, this Court had observed thus:

Under the constitutional scheme as framed for the judiciary, the Supreme Court and the High Courts both are courts of record. The High Court is not a Court "subordinate" to the Supreme Court. In a way the canvas of judicial powers vesting in the High Court is wider inasmuch as it has jurisdiction to issue all prerogative writs conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose while the original jurisdiction of Supreme Court to issue prerogative writs remains confined to the enforcement of fundamental rights and to deal with some such matters, such as Presidential elections or Inter-State disputes which the Constitution does not envisage being heard and determined by High Courts.

In Dwarkanath''s case (supra), this Court had said that Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex facie confers a wide power on the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found. This Article enables the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and extra-ordinary circumstances of the case. Therefore, what we have said above in regard to the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 32, must apply equally in relation to the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied with the credibility of the Petitioner, in his capacity of representative of people (MLA) whose letter to the Hon''ble the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh resulted in entertainment of this writ petition as a taken up case. Bona fides of the Petitioner even as a citizen and the Member of the Legislative Assembly in bringing to the notice of this Court serious allegations concerning vast extents of State''s resources, viz., very valuable prime land on the outskirts of Hyderabad city, coupled with the fact that not single pie is received nor any substantial shareholding is allowed to remain with the Nodal Agency of the State, smacks of a huge scam requiring intervention by this Court in order to ensure and protect the public property.

The Director General, Vigilance & Enforcement Department states that the market value per square yard is Rs. 50,000/- and had the 4th Respondent developed on its own, it would have sold @Rs. 50,000/- per sq. yard and the total revenue would have been realised upto Rs. 905 crores. The total expenditure was only Rs. 49 crores and if the same is set off, the gross revenue would have been Rs. 856 crores. It is stated that the market value of the neighbouring areas is ranging from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per sq. yard. The plots in the integrated project would be Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per sq. yard. Even the EMAAR MGF Limited sold one plot @ Rs. 23,198/- per sq. yard in August 2009, when the real-estate market was under recession. The 10th Respondent thus submitted the interim report stating that there is gross failure to protect the public interest, huge loss of revenue to the Government, deliberate deception and misleading besides criminal misappropriation, cheating and falsification of records are all evident in this case. Money laundering, flight of capital, tax evasion and intentional defrauding the Government are evident. Hence in-depth probe by an investigating/prosecution agency, which has the wherewithal to visit the foreign countries like Dubai, Mauritius and is having fully equipped economic offences wing, is required for taking appropriate action against the perpetrators of this huge fraud. We are, therefore, prima facie, satisfied of credibility as well as genuine concern for protecting the public property as is involved in the present writ petition.

We shall now briefly deal with the various contentions of the learned senior counsel for the 4th Respondent:

In view of the aforesaid background, it is to be seen whether the letter addressed by the Petitioner Mr. P. Shankar Rao to the Hon''ble Chief Justice of this Court is to settle the political scores and unleash private vendetta and not in the larger public interest. The letter states that the 4th Respondent EMAAR Properties PJSC has swindled 100''s of crores of rupees from which legitimately belongs to APIIC with the help of officials and politicians. The very fact that the present Chairman of APIIC is writing to different people for CBI enquiry is not being heeded and the narrated silent points about the joint venture company in the name of EHTPL formed in 2003 and APIIC, a State Government public sector undertaking to develop and lease Ac.535.00 of land in Gachibowli in the ratio of 74% to 26%. The EMAAR Properties PJSC, the partner of EHTPL without the knowledge of APIIC entered into another partnership with EMAAR MGF Limited in 2006 in violation of the agreement and various Government rules to develop the same piece of land in the ratio of 75% to 25% i.e. EMAAR MGF Limited will hold 75% and EHTPL will hold 25%, hence the stake of APIIC in this project has been fallen to 6.5%, it cannot be said that this taken up writ petition is not maintainable. It is stated that it is mandatory for all these decisions like this to be supported by G. Os and Cabinet approvals. But all these decisions taken by APIIC Board itself. The APIIC was appointed as a Nodal Authority for execution of this project but not a final decision making authority. The dramatis personae in the APIIC is one Mr. B.P. Acharya, IAS, MD and one Mr. Parthasaradhi, Director, APIIC who is the brother-in-law of Mr. K.V.P. Ramachandrarao, who has done all these under the directions of Mr. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy. By way of reduction of share to APIIC to 6.5% their partner EMAAR MGF Limited alone benefited by about Rs. 2,500 crores. There is a clause that there has to be independent auditing and engineering firms to supervise all these transactions but till today, there is neither independent auditing firm nor independent engineering firm associated with this project. By way of subscriptions and membership to the golf course and seven acres of apartments wherein square feet built up area is being sold from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 7,000/-. Totally four blocks consisting of 350 apartments all put together is 9 lakh sq. ft. Not a single rupee has been credited to APIIC so far, but only shown as equity in shares for the amount i.e. due to APIIC. Total land for 134 villas situated in Ac.36.00 approximately @Rs. 5,000/- per sq. yard from 2006 onwards, whereas the registration value itself is about Rs. 12,000/- per sq. yard and the market rate is about Rs. 60,000/- and EMAAR MGF Limited collected in respect of same plots @Rs. 25,000/- per sq. yard at the time of selling of the plots. So far the EMAAR MGF Limited collected sale proceeds of Rs. 85.77 crores and unaccounted Rs. 450 crores which is siphoned off possibly to Dubai. To begin with it was understood that Ac.285.00 would get developed and Ac.235.00 would be used for leasing and the remaining is consisting of lakes etc, but now EMAAR MGF Limited has converted the entire project for developing and names that project as EMAAR MGF Land Development Project i.e. it has acquired the right to sell the entire land. Similarly, it is a fact that the people who benefited by looting the Government in irrigation projects, and land allotments have invested in Sakshi Newspaper which is a public information. Accordingly, the Petitioner requested to conduct a hearing and order a CBI enquiry into these matters. He stated that if the matter is taken up he can produce more evidence before this Court.

We are of the opinion that the said letter addressed to the Hon''ble the Chief Justice narrates about the alleged fraud committed by the officials of APIIC at the relevant time as well as by the 4th Respondent. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Petitioner who filed the said letter has no public interest and that the said complaint is not in the nature as to warrant the adjudication of the case in the larger public interest, as contemplated under Rule-7A(c) and (d) of the Writ Proceedings Rules.

Except the learned senior counsel appearing for the 4th Respondent, none opposed for entertaining the said letter as a taken up writ petition in Public Interest Litigation. In fact, the allegation of fraud in this case gets substantiated as per counters of the Government, APIIC, Director of Vigilance. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and another Vs. Ranchi Zila Samta Party and another, while dealing with an appeal by the Special Leave against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court ordering CBI enquiry on the allegations that large scale defalcation of public funds, and fraudulent transactions and falsification of accounts to the tune of Rs. 500 crores when came to the light of the Animal Husbandry Department by the State of Bihar, while answering the question that arose for consideration as to whether the Hon''ble Supreme Court would be justified in interfering with the order passed by the High Court, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the parameters of the powers of the High Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India to direct an investigation by the CBI, though without the consent of the concerned State, is the subject matter of a reference pending consideration of a Constitution Bench of five Judges, refused to be interfere and opined that, to alleviate the apprehensions of the State about the control of the investigation by CBI, it should be under the overall control and in supervision of the Chief Justice of Patna High Court. The CBI is directed to take over the investigation already made by the State Police inclusive of FI Rs, arrest and attachments and deal appropriately therewith. 29. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case as the learned senior counsel appearing for the 4th Respondent has reserved the arguments after deciding the question of maintainability of the writ petition. The learned senior counsel for the 4th Respondent contends that Rule-7A of the Writ Proceeding Rules do not apply to the letter taken up cases. We are unable to accept the said contention. The entire Rule-7A is inserted by way of amendment of Rule-7A in the Writ Proceedings Rules by this Court in exercise of the powers vested under Article-225 of the Constitution of India and all other powers therewith enabling this Court and made the aforesaid amendment to the Writ Proceedings Rules 1977. The said amendment came into force w.e.f. 29.04.2010. The entire Rule-7A extracted as follows for the sake of convenience:

RULE 7-A;

a) Every writ petition filed in public interest shall be heard by a Bench of two Judges;

b) In addition to and without derogating from the procedure prescribed in the other Rules contained herein, every writ petition filed in public interest shall conform to the procedure prescribed hereunder;

i. The affidavit filed in support of such petition shall contain an averment by way of a separate paragraph in the following terms. "I hereby affirm and state on oath that the Petitioner(s) herein has/have no personal interest in the subject matter of this petition. The Petitioner(s) hereby undertake(s) to pay exemplary costs and/or compensatory damages as directed by this Court in the event of a contrary finding upon adjudication by the Court that the writ petition is filed for extraneous/personal considerations or with an oblique motive."

ii. Where a writ petition is filed through counsel, the verification by the Advocate, after the above verification statement of the party, shall be in the format below;

Verified in my presence at ... on this the ... day of ... (Month, Year). Advocate Deponent

iii. The Petitioner(s) shall file along with the petition, document(s) in proof of his/her/their identity and residential address Certified true copies of the driving license/pass-port/identity card issued by the Election Commission of India/ration card/bank statement of the Petitioner(s) shall be sufficient proof for the purposes of this sub-rule;

iv. The affidavit shall clearly set out all the necessary facts to establish that the petition is filed in public interest as commonly understood, and shall be accompanied by all necessary and material documents to support the factual assertions made therein so as to establish prima facie the correctness of the contents thereof;

v. The deponent to the affidavit filed in support of such petition shall categorically aver by way of a separate paragraph that all possible efforts have been made to gather the material required for proper and comprehensive adjudication of the issue(s) raised. The deponent shall detail the steps taken in this regard, be it by addressing the authorities concerned or by invoking the relevant laws for obtaining the necessary information.

vi. The affidavit filed in support of such petition shall set out the source of the information gathered by the Petitioner(s) which lends support to the cause of action espoused in the petition. The deponent to the affidavit shall specifically state as to which of the facts are within the deponent''s knowledge and which of the facts are based upon information gathered by the deponent, indicating the authenticity of such information and the competence of the person who furnished such information. Any information in the form of an opinion expressed by a person competent to speak on the subject shall necessarily be accompanied by the details of the length of experience and the means of knowledge of such person to speak on the subject as to which the opinion is expressed.

vii. In the event the Court comes to the conclusion that the writ petition filed in public interest was motivated by any extraneous and/or ulterior motives or without bona fides, it shall be open to the Court to impose exemplary costs and/or compensatory damages upon the Petitioner(s). The exemplary costs so imposed may at the discretion of the Court be directed to be paid to the State Legal Services Authority. However, in the event the Respondents are shown to have sustained legally redressable damages owing to the filing of a frivolous or untenable writ petition in public interest, the compensatory damages awarded by the Court shall be paid to such affected party or parties as apportioned by the Court;

c) The Bench hearing writ petitions in public interest shall prioritize the hearing of such cases based on the nature of the case. Matters involving larger public interest or where the gravity/urgency of the issue raised so warrants, may be heard on priority basis;

d) Notwithstanding what is stated in these rules, it shall be open to the Court to entertain a writ petition filed in public interest without reference to the interest of the Petitioner(s) in the litigation if the subject matter of the complaint is of such nature as to warrant the adjudication of the case in larger public interest.

Rule-7A(b)(i) to (vii) prescribed the procedure to be followed relating to the writ petitions filed in public interest. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shall contain the averments stating that he has no personal interest in the subject matter of the petition and that he will undertake to pay exemplary costs and/or compensatory damages as directed by the Court in the event of a contrary finding upon adjudicating by the Court that the writ petition is filed for extraneous/personal considerations or with oblique motives. The writ petition filed through the advocate shall contain the verification that the deponent verified in the presence of the advocate. The Petitioner shall also file the documents relating to proof of his residential address and identity. The affidavit shall also set out the necessary facts to establish that the petition is filed in public interest and shall be accompanied by all necessary and material documents to support the factual assertions made therein so as to establish prima facie correctness of the contents thereof. The deponent of the affidavit filed in support of such petition shall categorically aver by way of a separate paragraph that all possible efforts have been made to gather the material required for proper and comprehensive adjudication of the issue raised. The affidavit shall also contain the source of information gathered by the Petitioner whether such averment is within his knowledge or based on information gathered by him indicating the authenticity of such information. As per Rule 7-A(b)(vii) if the Court comes to the conclusion that the writ petition is filed in public interest was motivated by extraneous and/or ulterior motives or without bona fides, it shall be open to the Court to impose exemplary costs and/or compensatory damages upon the Petitioner. But under Rule-7A(d) notwithstanding what is contained in the said Writ Proceedings Rules it shall be open to the Court to entertain a writ petition filed in public interest without reference to the interest of the Petitioner in the litigation if the subject matter of the complaint is of such nature as to warrant adjudication of the case in larger public interest.

In so far as the compliance of Rule-7A(b)(i) to (vii) of the Writ Proceedings Rules are concerned, it is stated by the learned Amicus Curiae that the identity of Mr. P. Shankarrao, M.L.A. is not in dispute, and in the event of this Court comes to the conclusion that the taken up writ petition based on his letter is frivolous and politically motivated without involving any larger public interest, it is always open for this Court to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs as well as the damages as contemplated in the aforesaid rules payable by the Petitioner. It is further contended that in view of the counters filed by APIIC, State of Andhra Pradesh, Director General, Vigilance and Enforcement Department, it cannot be said that the said letter is frivolous or politically motivated which indicates that the concerned officials as well as the persons who have close power in Government have ingeniously, mischievously, calculatedly and systematically brought into existence several agreements with a view to siphon the share of APIIC. It is stated that the land given for the development purpose belongs to the Government and the APIIC was appointed as a Nodel Agency to monitor the said three SP Vs, but the persons who were at the helm of affairs at the relevant point of time have become silent spectators directly or indirectly encouraging the fraud and the mischief. Therefore, it is stated that thorough investigation by a powerful investigating authority such as CBI is essential in this case, as suggested by the Director General, Vigilance and Enforcement Department.

We are of the opinion that the letter written by the Petitioner Mr. Shankara Rao contains the particulars in brief about the fraud on State said to have committed by APIIC, 4th Respondent-EMAAR Properties PJSC as well as EMMAR MGF Limited who have said to have been benefited by about Rs. 2,500 crores reducing the stake of APIIC in the project from 26% to 6.5%. He has filed the supporting documents of all the agreements entered in between the parties showing the alleged fraud played by the 4th Respondent with his sister concern EMAAR MGF Limited. Merely because the letter written by the Chairman of APIIC to the Chairperson of the UPA Government about the fraud and the scam involved in the instant case is enclosed, it cannot be said that the letter addressed by Mr. P. Shankar Rao to the Hon''ble Chief Justice is politically motivated and intended to settle the political scores and unleash the private vendetta. We are also of the opinion that merely because the Petitioner is not a poor or disadvantaged person it cannot be said that the Petitioner is not entitled to write the letter in question to protect the public interest at large.

In view of the amended Writ Proceedings Rules pursuant to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors., (29 supra), Rule-7A(d) directs that the Court must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL, if it is prima facie satisfies the correctness of the contents and substantial public interest is involved. We are of the opinion that Rule-7A(d) as well as of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court would not prohibit to entertain the letter of the Petitioner Mr. P. Shankara Rao as a writ petition in public interest. Even otherwise, from the facts of the letter supported by the Respondents other than Respondent No. 4, it cannot be said that the subject matter of the complaint is not that of such nature warranting to adjudicate the case in larger public interest. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is maintainable, as larger public interest is involved warranting the adjudication of the case. Accordingly, we admit the writ petition.

Rule Nisi. Call for the records. Urgent Notice returnable in two weeks. Parties to this taken up case are at liberty to file additional pleadings, if they desire to do so.

We are also of the opinion that (1) EMAAR MGF Land Pvt. Ltd represented by its Chief Executive Officer (South) Mr. Srikanth P. Joshi having registered office at ECE House, 1st floor 28 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110 001; (2) M/s. Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd having its registered office at 1st floor ANR Centre Building, Road No. 1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 034, represented by its General Manager Mr. Vijay Menon, S/o. K.R. Menon, resident of 8-2-674/2/8/1 Road No. 13 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad as well as (3) M/s. Stylish Homes Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at 15, Site-II, Filmnagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500 003 represented by its Director Mr. T. Rangarao, are proper and necessary parties to this writ petition, and they are accordingly suo motu impleaded as party Respondents Nos. 11 to 13 in this writ petition.

Issue urgent notice to Respondents Nos. 11 to 13, returnable in two weeks, inviting counters and hearing on 14.03.2011.