- (1.)H. L. Gokhale, C. J. The petitioner is a resident of NOIDA. He has filed this petition in public interest, containing various prayers, which are princi pally to challenge the legality and validity of the Taj Expressway Project. It is a project where under six lane motorable corridor is to be constructed between GREATER NOIDA and AGRA.
(2.)WE have heard the petitioner, Sri Ashutosh Srivastava in person and Sri Jyotindra Misra, Advocate General with Sri O. K. Arora Additional Advocate Gen eral on behalf of Respondent No. 1-State of U. P. ; Sri Harish Salve, Senior Advo cate, Sri S. P. Gupta, Senior Advocate along with Sri Yashwant Varma, Advocate for Respondent No. 2-J. P. Group of Industries; and Sri Navin Sinha, Senior Advo cate along with Sri Ajay Bhanot, Advocate for Respondent No. 3-Taj Expressway Authority. WE have also perused the record. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with consent of the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents, this petition is taken on board for hearing and final disposal.
The petition raises various issues but principally the challenge is to the report of the Commission of Enquiry which was appointed to look into the griev ances with respect to the project. It is prayed that after declaring the said enquiry report invalid and illegal, the Respondent No. 1 be directed to initiate de novo judicial enquiry. The prayers in the petition as initially filed are quoted below: " (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus command ing the respondent No. 1 to produce the alleged report of Commission headed by Justice Sidheshwar Narayan (Retired ). (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to initiate of novo judicial enquiry headed by sitting High Court Judge. (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing declaring the alleged enquiry report illegal, invalid and ineffective and not enforceable in the eye of law. (d) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case. (e) Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner in person. "

Thereafter by way of amendment application filed on 29. 11. 2007, the peti tioner sought to challenge the concession agreement dated 7. 2. 2003 entered between the Respondent No. 3-Taj Expressway Authority, an authority consti tuted under Section 3 of the U. P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and Respondent No. 2-J. P. Group of Industries and also for a direction for investiga tion by Central Bureau of Investigation or special investigation team. The prayers sought by the amendment application dated 29. 11. 2007 are quoted below: " (i) Issue an order, writ or direction in the nature of mandamus to de clare the concession agreement dated 7th February, 2003 entered into be tween Taj Expressway Industrial Development and Jaiprakash Industries Lim ited illegal as well as null and void. (ii) Issue an order, writ or direction in the nature of mandamus to order an investigation by the CBI or special investigation team into the entire deal of Taj Expressway Project between Taj Expressway Industrial Development and Jaiprakash Industries Limited. "

(3.)BEFORE entering into the merits of the case, we shall first proceed to deal with the preliminary objection raised by Sri Jyotindra Misra, learned Advocate General with regard to the locus of the petitioner to file this petition. It has been contended by Sri Misra that the petitioner cannot be said to be a person inter ested in the awarding of contract to any party and, as such, a writ petition at his behest would not be maintainable. The petitioner is a citizen residing at NOIDA. In our view, he has raised certain important questions with respect to this project, which are in public interest and as such his locus to challenge the same cannot be denied. This petition cannot, thus, be rejected on any such ground.
As regards the merits of the case, it is material to note that in view of the grievances raised by the petitioner and some others, a Commission of Enquiry was constituted under the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') and a report of the Enquiry Commission headed by Justice Sidheshwar Narayan, retired Judge of Patna/calcutta High Courts was submitted on 12. 10. 2006.