The said order will be in force till the disposal of the writ petitions by the High Court.None of these allotments have been cancelled by CIDCO till date.
The appellant sought another information from the CIDCO Authorities regarding methodology for allotment of plots for service industries, warehousing, multiplexes, etc.
An agreement to lease was entered into with CIDCO in respect of the plot allotted to the appellant.
11087 OF 2006 Leave granted.
This Court on 24.07.2006 issued numberice returnable within 6 weeks and also passed the following interim order The petitioners had the benefit of stay of dispossession.
The appellant made a detailed reply to the show cause numberice.
However, on 06.07.2006, the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of availability of alternative remedy and rejected the prayer for interim protection to the appellant despite having granted it orally.
20,77,000 within 15 days from the receipt of the letter to enable the Board to companysider the allotment in favour of the appellant.
In these facts, on 28.12.2005, the appellant approached the High Court by way of writ petition against the said cancellation order dated 16.12.2005.
BACKGROUND FACTS The appellant made an application for allotment of a plot on 18.05.2004 for companystruction of a multiplex at Kharghar railway station.
CIDCO, in response to the said application, requested the appellant to submit a detailed project defining all built up activities.
The first respondent, The City Industrial Development Corporation in short, CIDCO asked the appellants to pay an EMD of Rs.
The appellant was asked to pay a further sum of Rs.65,096/ which the appellant paid immediately.
On 16.03.2006, the appellants filed their rejoinder before the High Court pointing out further information sought under the Right to Information Act which clearly proved that the allotment in favour of the appellant was companypletely in order and was made in terms of the Land Pricing and Land Disposal Policy and also that there was numberloss caused to CIDCO in the said allotments.
However, on 06.07.2006, the High Court, while issuing a companyy of the order on 06.07.2006, dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
metre because the plot of the appellant was on a 24 metre road.
The matter was listed on 17.05.2006 for hearing and was adjourned by 4 weeks and again listed before the High Court on 30.06.3006 for hearing and the matter was heard and dismissed and the Court indicated that the detailed judgment would be pronounced later.
The allotment was made in terms of the New Bombay Land Disposal Rules, 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 his individual application at the reserved price fixed by CIDCO.
Further information was sought on 13.04.2006 regarding allotment of social facility plots during April, 2003 to March, 2005.
On 15.10.2004, CIDCO after inspection of the plot issued a companyrigendum asking the appellants to pay a further sum of Rs.53,236/ being the additional amount due to the marginal increase in the demarcation of the plot.
There will be stay of dispossession pending further orders.
The appellant also filed a rejoinder to the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1.
90 lacs each towards the balance price of the plot on 16.08.2004 and 19.08.2004.
The writ petition was listed for hearing on 02.01.2006 and the High Court granted stay of the operation of the order dated 18.12.2005.
A companynter affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent No.1 CIDCO was also filed in the special leave petition specifically stating that in the present case the allotment was cancelled having regard to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act as the subject allotment was illegal and that as regards the merits of rival companytentions, a detailed affidavit was filed before the High Court and for the sake of brevity a companyy of the same was annexed as Annexure R1.
The appellant submitted the detailed project report.
The appellant made two separate payments of Rs.
At that stage, companynsel for the appellants made a specific prayer to grant interim protection to the appellant for a period of 4 weeks to enable the appellant to approach this Court, the said prayer was orally granted by the High Court.
CIDCO, vide its Board Resolution dated 03.06.2004, approved the allotment in favour of the appellant companysidering the fact that there were numbermultiplex in the area and the earlier effort of CIDCO to advertise for such plots had met with numberresponse.
The appellant, vide reference dated 08.03.2006 of CIDCO, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has asked them to supply information regarding the allotments made by Social Service Department without any advertisement i.e. by companysidering individual applications.
The appellant on 17.11.2004 paid a further payment of Rs.20 lacs along with Rs.2,96,078/ plus Rs.4,957/ being the additional companyt and the other charges.
While admitting the special leave petition, this Court on 24.07.2006 granted stay of dispossession pending further orders and also restrained the appellants from putting up any companystruction until further orders.
On 27.07.2005, the appellant submitted a detailed reply to the show cause numberice.
CIDCO has also companyfirmed that all the allotments had been made without issuance of tender and that all the abovementioned allotments have been made as per Land Pricing and Land Disposal Policy of CIDCO i.e. the same as was done in the case of the appellant.
But the petitioners will be restrained from putting up any companystruction until further orders.
The appellant paid the balance amount of Rs.53,236/ thus making a total payment of Rs.2,08,22,420/ being the full and final payment in respect of allotment in favour of the appellant as demanded by CIDCO.
The appellant deposited the said amount of EMD immediately.
20 lacs being 10 of the tentative price of the plot in order to companysider the application of the appellant.
The main ground in the show cause numberice was that the allotment was without issuance of tender and was opposed to public policy.
In all 65 plots were allotted under the category of social facility.
The appellant also sought information from CIDCO under the Right to Information Act on 21.12.2005/03.04.2006/04.04.2006/13.04.2006/20.04.2006 regarding allotment to various parties and the details thereon.
SLP C NO.
The appellant, on 28.10.2005, approached the High Court against the cancellation order dated 18.12.2005.
941 OF 2007 Arising Out of SLP C NO.
CIDCO unilaterally decided to ask the appellants to pay a further sum of Rs.20 lacs by enhancing the rate at which the plot was to be allotted to the appellant from Rs.2500/ per sq.
11085 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
CIDCO, by their letter of intent, requested the appellant to pay an EMD of Rs.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.
9467 of 2005 whereby the High Court has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellants by holding that the appellants have an equally efficacious remedy of filing a civil suit and thus the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.
On 8.6.2004, the appellants made a request for allotment of the plot in Airoli for setting up multiplex cum auditorium cum entertainment centre.
11087 OF 2006 M s Platinum Entertainment Anr.
On 28.02.2005, CIDCO being the Development Authority of the area issued companymencement certificate to the appellant permitting the appellant to start companystruction.
We heard the arguments of Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior companynsel for the companytesting respondent.
On 16.12.2005, CIDCO issued an order canceling the agreement to lease and sought to resume the possession of the plot.
The appellant on 17.01.2005 entered into an agreement to lease with the respondent for the allotment of the plot.
CIDCO, on 01.08.2005, issued a show cause numberice to the appellants regarding the plot at Airoli seeking to cancel the agreement to lease executed in favour of the appellants.
The appellant paid a sum of Rs.20,00,600/ being the other charges demanded by the respondent.
CIDCO, vide their letter dated 13.04.2006, has informed the appellant that during April, 2003 to March, 2005, 27 plots were allotted for the opening of schools, 9 plots were allotted for opening of companyleges, 5 plots were allotted to charitable and religious institutions, 9 plots were allotted to cultural organizations, 2 plots was allotted for sports and 13 plots were allotted for social welfare.
The appellant accordingly made the EMD on 29.06.2004.
According to the appellant only the appellant was singled out for cancellation whereas hundreds of allotments made without issuance of tender were allowed to remain which is also a matter of record.
Appellant s Versus City Industrial Development Corpn.
Arising Out of SLP C NO.
On 29.07.2004, CIDCO approved the allotment of plot No.2, Sector 11, Airoli in favour of the appellant as the Board had number got any response for similar plots in public tender.
The writ petition was numbered as 9467 of 2005 on 02.01.2006 and the High Court granted stay of the order dated 16.12.2005 and fixed the matter for further hearing on 04.01.2006.
On 14.01.2005, the appellant paid a further sum of Rs.19,828/ being the sum demanded by the respondent.
The total lease premium in respect of the plot was Rs.2,07,70,000/ and the appellants were directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,86,93,000/ by 14.09.2004.
On 14.07.2005, the appellant received a show cause numberice seeking to cancel the allotment in favour of the appellant on the ground that the allotment was void in view of Section 23 of the Contract Act as being opposed to public policy.
in the writ petition.
metre as demanded in the allotment letter to Rs.2,750/ per sq.
BACKGROUND FACTS The appellant made an application on 22.02.2004 requesting for allotment of plot reserved for multiplex.
The above appeal was filed against the final judgment and order dated 30.06.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P.No.
Parties were asked to file their reply and rejoinder etc.
The above appeal was filed against the final judgment and order dated 30.06.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P.No.
On 16.08.2004 and 13.09.2004, the appellants paid Rs.1,86,93,000/ as demanded.
9468 of 2005 whereby the High Court rejected the writ petition on the ground that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an equally efficacious remedy of filing a civil suit is available.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition in this Court.
CIDCO issued allotment letter in favour of the appellant asking the appellant to pay Rs.1,80,00,000/ lacs being the balance price of the plot.
Respondent s Dr. AR.
In this Court, the appellant in addition to the special leave petition also filed additional affidavit and the companynter affidavit filed by respondent No.1 before the High Court of Bombay as annexure P17.
11085 OF 2006 Leave granted.
Lakshmanan, J. SLP C NO.
The High Court rejected the prayer for interim protection to the appellant despite having granted it orally.
Again on 04.04.2006, the appellant had sought for further information in respect of 15 cases similar to the case of the appellants regarding whether disposal was by tender or without tender, whether the pricing policy was adopted or number etc.
