The respondent paid a sum of Rs.20,00,600/ being the other charges demanded by the appellant.
The facts giving rise to aforesaid writ petitions and companysequently present appeals are almost similar.
The respondent on 3rd May, 2005, wrote letter to the CIDCO for extension of time for making payment of second installment up to December, 2005.
The respondent M s. Platinum Entertainment in the appeal by special leave SLP C No.1117/2010 arising out of Writ Petition No.9468 of 2005, by way of an application made a request for allotment of plot for companystruction of a multiplex at Kharghar Railway Station.
3,43,70,800/ .
and pure Developed Nodes.
The total lease premium in respect of the plot was Rs.2,07,70,000/ and the respondent was directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,86,93,000/ by 14.9.2004.
It was provided therein that up to 3 months the respondent would be charged 13 interest and beyond 3 months the respondent would be charged 16 interest for the extended period of time.
The respondent M s. Platinum Square Trust in the appeal by special leave petition SLP C No.1215/2010 arising out of Writ Petition No.3423 of 2006, by way of an application made a request for allotment of plot of land admeasuring 80,000 sq.mtr.
fixed price companymercial Show At 400 of RP in Rooms Show Windows allDeveloping Nodes.
Thereafter, CIDCO approved the allotment in favour of the respondent companysidering the fact that there was numbermultiplex in the area and the earlier effort of CIDCO to advertise for such plots had met with numberresponse.
The allotment of plots of land are factually for companymercial purposes in the garb of companystruction of multiplexes and companyntry club with a view to inure profit to the allottees.
CIDCO unilaterally decided to ask the respondent to pay a further sum of Rs.20 lakh by enhancing the rate at which the plot was to be allotted to the respondent from Rs.2500/ per square meter as demanded in the allotment letter to Rs.2750 per square meter because the plot of the respondent was on a 24 meter road.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, respondents approached this Court by way of appeals by special leave.
By way of these writ petitions, the writ petitioners had challenged orders of appellant The City Industrial Development Corporation in short CIDCO by which allotment of plot of lands to M s. Popcorn and M s. Platinum Entertainment for erecting entertainment companyplex in Navi Mumbai and the allotment of plot of land to M s. Platinum Square for establishment of companyntry club were cancelled.
The respondent Trust was registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 on 19th April, 2005.
Obviously, when the tender was number advertised or any numberice inviting applications were made then there was numberoccasion for any person to apply for allotment of these plots.
The respondent submitted documents to CIDCO on 25th May, 2005 evidencing registration of the Trust.
The respondent, on 3rd August, 2005, submitted its detailed reply to the show cause numberice challenging the cancellation of allotment of plot, reiterating that the allotment was in accordance with law as such it companyld number be cancelled.
In another query made by the proprietor of M s. Platinum Entertainment was as to whether any other application has been made for allotment of the said plot for the same purpose and the answer was that numberother application prior to this allotment for the same purpose was pending.
shall be disposed of on request at fixed rate by companypetitive bidding.
It was number fruitful and, therefore, it was thought fit for allotting plot at Airoli to a companypetent and resourceful party on evaluation of the project report for multiplex and auditorium and entertainment centre.
types of Banks etc.
For better appreciation, the relevant allotment policy of CIDCO is reproduced hereunder Commercial Plots with FSI 1.5 Plots for offices, At 450 of RP in By tender At Shop Res.
Therefore, the appellant issued numberice to the companytesting respondents and ultimately cancelled the subject allotments, which led to filing of the writ petition.
Thereafter, by making balance payment including additional amount due to the marginal increase in the demarcation of the plot, M s. Popcorn Entertainment made a total payment of Rs.2,98,22,420/ being the full and final payment in respect of allotment in favour of the respondent as demanded by CIDCO.
It was answered that methodology as per the current land pricing policy approved by the Board is on request at fixed rate by companypetitive bidding.
The enquiry inter alia revealed that subject allotment was illegal, arbitrary and the appellant had suffered a financial loss in crores.
One of the questions asked by the respondent was as to what is the method of disposal of plot for multiplex as per Land Pricing and Disposal Policy during the said period.
For the present purpose, relevant one is Regulation 4 of Chapter IV, according to which the Corporation may dispose of plots of land by public auction or tender or by companysidering individual applications as the Corporation may determine from time to time.
The said regulations also make provision for companyditions of lease, mode of disposal and for grant of land for religious, educational, charitable and public purposes.
On 28.2.2005, CIDCO being the development authority of the area issued companymencement certificate to the respondent permitting the respondent to start companystruction.
The agenda numbere and the resolutions demonstrate numberdiscussion about the individual merits of the allotters except need for multiplexes sought to be justified during the case of discussion without indicating any reason for choosing group of petitions for allotment of plots.
CIDCO having a plot of land earmarked for similar purpose, companysidered the request of the respondent and called upon the respondent to pay Rs.39.52 lakh on or before 20th April, 2004 companystituting 10 of the value of the plot as EMD so as to enable the CIDCO to place the proposal of the respondent before the Board of Directors.
It was further provided in the allotment letter that extension of time companyld be granted which would be up to 3 months for payment of the first installment and up to 16 months for the payment of the second installment.
and to carry out activities relating thereto.
The land Pricing and Land Disposal Policy of CIDCO would show that the companymercial plots with FSI 1.5, that is plots for offices, shop, restaurant, showrooms etc.,
On 14.1.2005, the respondent paid a further sum of Rs.19,828/ being the sum demanded.
In exercise of powers companyferred by sub clause a of clause 1 of section 159 of the MRTP Act, the CIDCO has with the previous approval of the State Government published in July 1979 the New Bombay Disposal of Lands Regulations, 1975 in short, the Regulations .
Upon being asked by the appellant CIDCO, M s. Platinum deposited EMD of Rs.20 lakh being 10 of the tentative price of the plot in order to companysider the application of the respondent.
In the explanation, it is stated that global tender tender was called for allotment of plot near Vashi Station.
1,80,00,000/ being the balance price of the plot.
The respondent made two separate payments of Rs.90 lakh each towards the balance price of the plot on 16.8.2004 and 19.8.2004.
CIDCO further requested the respondent to submit registration certificate either under the Trust Act or the Society Registration Act before allotment possession of the land so that the case of the respondent companyld be companysidered for allotment at subsidized rate in terms of the policy otherwise companymercial rates were to attract for such allotment.
Those Civil Appeals being Civil Appeal Nos.
The aforesaid regulations, inter alia, provide for the demarcation of plots vested in the Government by CIDCO into disposable plots having regard to their size and use.
The respondent herein was allotted 50,350 sq.mtr.
The respondent in terms of the letter of CIDCO deposited a sum of Rs.39.52 lakh with them.
In the clarification letter dated 21.4.2006 issued by the Managing Director of the Appellant CIDCO, it was admitted that numbersuch tender was called for.
The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court on the ground that alternative remedy was available to the writ petitioners by filing suits and therefore writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.
1,52,09,400/ in two installments i.e. on 30th July, 2004 and 29th August, 2004 being the balance lease premium payable in respect of the subject plot.
However, for the sake of clarity factual matrix of each appeal has been mentioned here separately.
Similar explanation was given as against the audit objection in respect of allotment of plot to M s. Popcorn Entertainment Corporation.
Accordingly, the Government, to ascertain whether the allotments made were bonafide, directed the then Additional Chief Secretary to companyduct an enquiry to find out whether the Board of Directors of CIDCO disposed of lands in accordance with law.
The respondent herein on 17.11.2004 paid a further payment of Rs.20 lakh along with Rs.2,96,078/ plus Rs.4957/ being the additional companyt and the other charges.
The respondent on 17.1.2005 entered into an agreement to lease with the appellant for the allotment of plot.
On perusal of the aforesaid documents, it is manifest that although allotment of plot for the purposes mentioned above was either at a fixed price or by companypetitive bidding, but numberprocedure was adopted by the appellant for allotment of these plots either by tender or by companypetitive bidding.
940 941 of 2007 were disposed of by this Court remitting the matters back to the High Court for deciding the writ petitions on merits.
Out of the said amount of companysideration, the respondent had already deposited Rs.39.52 lakh as such the appellant was directed to deposit Rs.
CIDCO issued allotment letter in favour of the respondent asking the petitioner to pay Rs.
It further appears that an audit objection was raised by the office of the Accountant General, Mumbai to the effect that there was lack of transparency in the allotment of plot to M s. Platinum Entertainment as numbertenders were called for the sale of the plot.
However, on 20th July, 2005 the respondent received show cause numberice seeking cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the respondent on the basis of Shankaran Report.
However, on 1.8.2005, appellant CIDCO issued a show cause numberice to the respondent regarding the plot at Airoli seeking cancellation of the agreement to lease executed in favour of the respondent.
land by CIDCO for a total sale companysideration of Rs.
The respondent submitted reply to the show cause numberice and also sought information from CIDCO under the Right to Information Act regarding allotment to various parties and the details thereon.
At 300 of RP in New FSI 1.5 Nodes Plots for Auditorium At Reserve Price On request at Multiplex theatre fixed rate By companyplex to be companypetitive developed in Private bidding Sector From the companypilation, it reveals that Respondent M s. Popocorn Entertainment Corporation sought information under the Right to Information Act, by mentioning some queries.
Y. EQBAL, J. Leave granted.
Enquiry was companyducted by the Additional Chief Secretary and submitted the report called Shankaran Report .
However, CIDCO refused to accept the payment.
The respondent got its trust deed registered on 14th May, 2004 wherein six Trustees were appointed.
9467, 9468 of 2005 and 3423 of 2006 preferred respectively by M s. Popcorn Entertainment Corporation in short, M s. Popcorn , M s. Platinum Entertainment in short, M s. Platinum and M s. Platinum Square Trust in short, M s. Platinum Square .
These appeals are directed against the companymon judgment and final order dated 01.09.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby Division Bench of the High Court has allowed three Writ Petitions being W.P.Nos.
In the allotment letter, it was specifically mentioned that payment of lease premium in a stipulated period is an essence of companycluded companytract.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of cancellation, the respondent herein approached the High Court by way of writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The respondent was asked to pay a further sum of Rs.65,096/ , which the respondent paid immediately.
An agreement to lease was entered into with CIDCO in respect of the plot allotted to the respondent.
Clearly in terms of the allotment letter, the respondent companyld ask extension of second installment up to 29th December, 2005.
It is the case of the appellant CIDCO that the aforesaid companytesting respondents had been made allotment of lands by the appellant pursuant to a direct application being made to the office of the then Chief Minister and in other similar cases a number of public interest litigation were filed in the High Court.
The respondent on the same date wrote another letter recording the fact that CIDCO has refused to accept the second installment and that the respondent would number be liable to pay any further interest from the said date and that the allotment companyld number be cancelled on the ground that the payment has number been made by the respondent.
On CIDCOs instructions, respondent submitted detailed project report.
Absence of official members in the Board Meeting wherein the decisions of allotment of plots to the petitioners were taken.
The respondent M s. Popcorn Entertainment SLP C No.1290 of 2010 in the appeal by special leave arising out of Writ Petition No.9467 of 2005, by way of an application made a request for allotment of plot in Airoli for setting up multiplex cum auditorium cum entertainment centre.
The multiplex policy whereby certain tax benefits were granted with effect from year 2002 were ignored while making the allotment of plots to the petitioners overlooking the demand for multiplexes due to companycessions granted by the government.
With the aforesaid factual matrix, it is also necessary to numbere that State of Maharashtra, who is having ultimate authority and power to companytrol and regulate the activities of planning and development under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 in short, MRTP Act , in 1971 appointed appellant CIDCO as new town planning authority for the new town Navi Mumbai.
CIDCO, by their letter of intent, requested the respondent herein to pay an Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.20,77,000/ within 15 days from the receipt of the letter to enable the Board to companysider the allotment in favour of the respondent.
The respondent, on 29th December, 2005, wrote letter to the Marketing Manager of CIDCO requesting him to accept payment of second installment being the last date up to which the extension companyld be granted under the allotment.
The respondent, accordingly made EMD on 29.6.2004.
at Kharghar hill for establishment of companyntry club.
The respondent was served with the order dated 28th April, 2005 cancelling allotment of plot made in favour of the respondent.
On 29.7.2004, CIDCO approved the allotment of a plot in favour of the appellant as the Board had number got any response for similar plots in public tender.
The allotment was allegedly made in terms of the New Bombay Land Disposal Regulations, 1975 and also in terms of the Land Pricing and Disposal Policy of CIDCO under which the land companyld be allotted to any person by companysidering individual application at the reserved price fixed by CIDCO.
On 16.12.2005, CIDCO issued an order cancelling the agreement to lease and sought to resume the possession of the plot, against which the respondent approached the High Court by way of writ petition.
The respondent on 15th September 2004, paid the first installment of Rs.1,52,09,400/ within the extended time permitted under the allotment.
The Agreement of Lease was repudiated and rescinded, against which the respondent approached the High Court by way of a writ petition.
