and supported the plea for transfer of excess lands. The Apex Court dismissed both the charges of fraud and excess land grant and the government was asked to pay costs of Rs. 5lakh to the company. The Supreme Court also asked the High Court to initiate criminal proceedings against the chief secretary and another state government official for not telling the whole truth in their affidavits. In any case, the Court did not consider the substantive issues behind the allegations as to whether the land transferred was surplus or, more specifically, whether the unwanted lands near Bangalore had been handed over to the NICE company, where prices had soared to the stars. The courts stuck to the government's earlier assurance that the company had been given only a "minimal" amount of land. In reality, inappropriate governments need not act in the public interest and can certainly abuse their “expropriation” powers and aid and abet “eminent theft.” In these circumstances the courts can intervene to help the public interest, but in this case they unfortunately did not take that position. The case also raises suspicions that the courts have blindfolded themselves to the facts on the ground, with the “resjudicata” argument. This means that if some matters are resolved in court once, the same matters cannot be taken up again. This principle has also been considered applicable to public interest disputes. The BMIC project is based on the concept of internalizing the external benefits of a project to make it financially and economically sustainable. In this way, the 111 km controlled access highway can avail of the profits generated by the development of five municipalities along the route, business and commercial centers near... middle of paper... archived only to protect the interests of people so influential. If so, the claims of such committed bodies deserve to be rejected on the threshold and, in appropriate cases, at exemplary costs." Once the motives became suspect, the decision was simple. It said: "Once it was deemed that the FWA is valid and correct, the extent of land required for the project is part of it in terms of schedule I and the findings in this regard have become final and conclusive, it is not open to the state government nor to JC Madhuswamy and others, nor to this Court to reopen these questions." He thus replied: "The second part of the second question is in the negative, refraining from answering the first part of the second question, since this would mean resolving the contractual disputes between the parties, which does not fall within the scope of the this proceeding".51