The PIL, filed by economist, H M Desarada, challenges the tender on the ground that it is designed to benefit a section of big builders and therefore defeats the very objective of the corporation - to provide plots and houses to individuals from the lower and middle income groups.

While the tender, dated May 13, 1999, invites bids for bulk land purchases in various sectors of CIDCO, the petition draws attention to a 7,776 sq mt plot in Survey No 70 at Mukundwadi, which is included in the tender. It points out that CIDCO had recently floated a tender for land adjacent to Survey No 70 and had received offers amounting to as much as Rs 2 crore, ie, Rs 3,000 per sq ft whereas the minimum acceptable offer (floor price) fixed by CIDCOitself was Rs 1 crore (Rs 1,515 per sq ft).

Curiously, on this occasion, CIDCO had chosen not to quote any floor price, arousing suspicions that something was not quite right about the deal, it states. The petition states that by making a bulk offer of the 7,776 sq mt plot under its jurisdiction, CIDCO is depriving over 30 individuals in the low and middle income groups from availing of the scheme.

Desarda, who is pleading his case in person, also draws the court's attention to a submission made by CIDCO before the high court in another case regarding a dispute over the acquisition of land in Survey No 70. ``CIDCO officials had at that time specificially submitted before the court that plots drawn on the land would be made available to deserving individuals from the low and middle income group categories.''

Instead of trying to curb `gambling' in land deals, CIDCO has actually indulged in encouraging such activities, the petition alleges. Bulk land sale comes as a big boon to big builders, it adds.

Aperusal of the information booklet on the sale suggests a nexus between builders and CIDCO, it says, adding that there are clear-cut guidelines laid down by the state government for CIDCO and no discretionary powers have been assigned to its board of directors.

The petition says that three weeks usually elapse between publication of tenders and the last date for receipt of bids, on this occasion CIDCO has allowed only one week's time. This strengthens the premise that it had pre-fixed its clients. The petition has also demanded a stay on the tender, which is scheduled to open on Friday. The court will hear the PIL on Friday.