The Board, therefore, decided to reduce the price from Rs.2995/ per sq.
feet in Powai Project and also some other flats situated in other location in Mumbai at the rate of Rs.2200/ per sq.
The Board and the three Societies companytested the writ petition.
It was, therefore, companytended that due to these reasons, the Board did number entertain appellant No.1s offer and companysidered only the offers made by the three societies.
The challenge was also founded on legal grounds.
2017 of 2003 respectively before the High Court hereinafter referred to as three societies made their offers in writing for allotment of 500 flats in Powai Project on the terms offered by each of them in their respective offers.
The appellants herein were the writ petitioners whereas the respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition out of which this appeal arises.
Authority Resolution No.
It is, with these background facts, the Board issued 8th advertisement in local newspapers for sale of remaining unsold flats which included 251 deluxe flats with a area of 893 sq.
feet to Rs.2200/ per sq.
It is known as Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board for short Board .
feet on the terms and companyditions set out in the advertisement booklet.
On the same day, M s. Kamath Construction, on their part, forwarded the offer of appellant No.1 to the Board along with three other offers, which they received from Andhra Bank, Canara Bank and Bank of Baroda.
So far as appellant No.1 herein is companycerned, it is also a companyperative housing society and they also applied on 03.03.2003 Annexure P6 to M s Kamath Constructions and offered to purchase 110 flats of Powai Project for Rs.17 crores.
By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition finding numberfault in the Boards decision taken in the meetings on 10/14.05.2003, which gave rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave to appeal in this Court by unsuccessful writ petitioners.
Appellant No.1 also simultaneously applied to the Board on 03.03.2003 requesting them to supply all necessary details regarding the Powai Project to enable them to book the said flats.
So far as the three societies are companycerned, they justified the stand taken by the Board and supported their offers made to the Board for purchase of the flats as being just, reasonable and proper, calling numberinterference in the decision of the Board in their favour on 10/14.05.2003.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order, allow the appellants writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, and issue writ of certiorari to quash the decision of meetings dated 10/14.5.2003 and further issue a writ of mandamus against the respondentsBoard and the three societies to ensure its companypliance as directed hereinbelow in detail.
Socy Proposed , addressed in writing to the Chairman Mumbai Board.
Socy Proposed , addressed in writing to the Chairman Mumbai Board.
Socy Proposed addressed in writing to the Chairman Mumbai Board.
The Resolution No.192 which dealt with this matter reveals that the Board companysidered only the offers made by the three societies and eventually accepted their offers with some modifications.
Respondent number1 is a statutory authority created under the Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority Act, 1976 for short called MHADA Act .
On 10.02.2003, 11.02.2003 and 12.02.2003, three Cooperative Societies namely 1 Shree Amey Cooperative Housing Society 2 Shri Guru Krupa Co operative Housing Society and 3 Shree Sai Shraddha Cooperative Housing Society respondent number.4, 5 and 6 in Writ Petition No.
Amongst them, one matter was regarding sale of flats of Powai Project with which we are companycerned here in this appeal and the offers made by the three societies and the appellant No.1 for purchase of the flats of Powai Project.
feet for sale of remaining 327 flats so as to enable it to sell the said unsold flats.
It was companytended that the Board received appellant No.1s letter on 03.03.2003 late as companypared to the offers of the three societies on 10.02.2003/11.02.2003/12.02.2003.
In other words, the question arises for companysideration in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in upholding the decision of the Board companytained in their Resolution No.192 in relation to sale of flats of Powai Project Building No.8 to the three societies without companysidering appellant No.1s offer.
The Board, however, did number companysider the offer of appellant No.1 at all.
Gurukripa Coop.
The challenge was founded inter alia on the ground of mala fides attributed to the officials for extending undue favour to the three societies in accepting their offers, including the manner in which their offers were accepted.
In substance, the Board while defending its resolution dated 10/14.05.2003 inter alia companytended that appellant No.1 never submitted its offer but what it had actually submitted was one letter dated 03.03.2003 addressed to the Board and M s. Kamath Constructions, wherein appellant No.1 made an inquiry to get more details from the Board about the sale of flats of Powai Project.
Letter dated 11.02.2003 from the Chief Promoter, Shri.
Ameya Coop.
to the Chairman Mumbai Board.
For some reasons, only 123 flats companyld be sold, out of 1924, by the Board.
The Board, therefore, from 1995 to 1999 issued seven advertisements for sale of remaining flats, pursuant to which 1597 flats which included sale of 123 flats companyld be sold leaving still 327 flats unsold.
The Board, however, again claimed that they did number receive good response.
Appellant No.1, therefore, felt aggrieved and filed writ petition before the High Court of Bombay out of which this appeal arises and challenged therein the Boards decision in accepting the offers of three societies and number companysidering along with them the offer of appellant No.1 in the meetings held by the Board on 10.05.2003/14.05.2003.
One of the objects of the Board is to make housing schemes for the benefit of different sections of the people and provide them the houses at reasonable companyts.
Letter dated 10.02.2003 from the Chief Promoter Shri.
Letter dated nil written by Pooja Estate Consultant Construction dated nil to the Vicepresident Au.
So far as the allegations of mala fides were companycerned, they were denied by the Board.
178/5715 dated 21.07.2001.
The Board on 10.05.2003/14.5.2003 held meetings to companysider several matters.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 26.03.2008 passed by the High Court Signature Not Verified of Bombay in Writ Petition No.2017 of 2003 whereby Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2018.10.12 155043 IST Reason the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants.
