Full Text
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13145 OF 2023
Neelkanth Infratech ….Petitioner
:
The City and Industrial Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. ….Respondent
Mr. Arshad Shaikh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinod Hirji Vaviya, Mr. Sanjay Udeshi, Mr. Aditya Udeshi and Mr. Rahul Sanghvi i/b
Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Sinha (Through V.C.) with Mr. Harishit Tyagi i/b DSK
Legal , for the Respondent-CIDCO.
DATED : 30 JULY 2025.
JUDGMENT
1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for rival parties, petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
2) The Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging communication dated 24 December 2021, 23 March 2022 and 27 September 2023 refusing to allot the concerned plot in its favour. Petitioner has sought Writ of Mandamus against Respondent-CIDCO for allotment of the concerned plot on account of Petitioner being the highest bidder in the tender process.
3) Brief facts leading to filing of the petition are as under: Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate in the City of Navi Mumbai. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) owns lands interalia in the City of Navi Mumbai and allots the same on lease.
4) CIDCO is a new town Development Authority constituted under Section 113A of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). Under Section 118 of the MRTP Act, CIDCO has the power and authority to dispose of lease lands acquired under Section 113A and vested in it by the State Government. The State Government has framed New Bombay Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975 which govern disposal of lands by the Board of Directors of CIDCO.
5) On 9 September 2021, CIDCO published tenders for allotment of residential/commercial plots in various sectors and of Navi Mumbai nodes. Plot No.27 admeasuring 3212.92 sq.mts. situated at Sector-9, Node Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai (Plot No.27) was advertised by virtue of tender notice dated 9 September 2021. 9 bids were received by CIDCO and Petitioner emerged as the highest bidder at Rs. 1,42,578/- per sq.mts. for Plot No.27. It appears that CIDCO had also advertised Plot No.24 in the vicinity of Plot No.27 for which Petitioner was the highest bidder at price of Rs. 2,12,589/per sq.mts.
CIDCO had also advertised Plot No.26 for which highest bid was by M/s. Juhi Habitat for Rs.1,72,245/- per sq.mtrs. Additionally, few more plots in Ghansoli Node were also advertised for which highest bids were below Rs.2,12,589/- per sq.mtrs.
CIDCO therefore called upon all the respective highest bidders in Ghansoli Node to match the price of Rs. 2,12,589/- quoted for Plot No. 24. Aggrieved by the letter dated 24 December 2021, Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 132/2022 in which order dated 7 January 2022 was passed granting liberty to the Petitioner to submit a representation before the Managing Director of CIDCO who was directed to decide the same. Similar order was passed in Petition filed by highest bidders of other plot in Ghansoli Node, including Juhi Habitat. After grant of personal hearing, order dated 23 March 2022 was passed by Managing Director, CIDCO directing that offer letter dated 24 December 2021 issued in respect of Plot No. 27 was recalled and cancelled. Aggrieved by letter dated 23 March 2022, Petitioner filed Interim Application No. 2057/2022 in Writ Petition No. 132/2022. On 2 August 2022, this Court granted one more opportunity to the Petitioner to approach Managing Director, CIDCO. Petitioner again made representations to CIDCO. In the said representations, Petitioner contended that the highest bidders of other plots in Ghansoli node were permitted to retain their bids and CIDCO had decided to allot plots to them based on their bids by ignoring the rate of Rs. 2,12,583/- received in respect of Plot No.24. Petitioner pointed out that in respect of Plot No.26, CIDCO had made allotment to Juhi Habitat by accepting rate of Rs. 1,72,245/- per sq.mtrs. That Petitioner expressed willingness to match the said rate. However by letter dated 27 September 2023, CIDCO rejected Petitioner’s offer. This is how, Petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the communications impugned orders dated 24 December 2021, 23 March 2022 and 27 September 2023.
6) Mr. Shaikh, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Petitioners would submit that the action of CIDCO in directing the Petitioner to match the rate in respect of Plot No. 24 is totally arbitrary. That separate bids were submitted qua each plot and it is impermissible to direct highest bidder of one plot to match the highest bid received in respect of another plot. That each plot has its own characteristics, attracting different price and that it is wholly arbitrary on the part of CIDCO to direct that the highest bid received in respect of the one out of 12 plots must become the price for allotment of all 12 plots. Since Petitioner has emerged as highest bidder in the auction process for Plot No. 27 directing Petitioner to match highest bid in respect of Plot No. 24 amounts to modification of tender condition, which is impermissible in law. He would therefore submit that the impugned order dated 24 December 2021 is grossly illegal.
7) So far as the second impugned order dated 23 March 2022 is concerned, Mr. Shaikh would submit that the Managing Director of CIDCO has admitted that Plot No. 27 has a different characteristic than that of Plot No. 24. That despite admitting this position, passing of order dated 23 March 2022 clearly smacks of malafides and arbitrariness. Having admitted the position that both plots have different characteristics, CIDCO must allot Plot No. 27 to the Petitioner at the rate mentioned in its bid. He would submit that Plot No. 26 (adjacent to Plot No. 27) has ultimately been allotted by Managing Director, CIDCO to the highest bidder by order dated 23 March 2022 at the rate of Rs. 1,72,245/- thereby accepting the position that the highest bid of Rs. 2,12,589/- in respect of Plot No.24 cannot be an indicator for allotment of all the plots in Ghansoli node particularly Plots Nos.26 and 27. That Petitioner has been given discriminatory treatment by not extending the same benefit as is extended to allottee of Plot No.26. Therefore, the second impugned order dated 23 March 2022 deserves to be set aside.
8) Mr. Shaikh would further submit that the third impugned order dated 27 September 2023 suffers from the vice of nonapplication of mind where the second impugned order is confirmed without considering any representation made by the Petitioner. That Petitioner had made offer to match the price in respect of Plot no.26 of Rs.1,72,245/- per sq.mtrs. However, no consideration was given to the said offer.
9) Mr. Shaikh would submit that the decision of the State Instrumentalities in matters pertaining to tenders must not only be tested on the ground of fairness and reasonableness but must be free from arbitrariness unaffected by bias and actuated malafides. He would rely upon Tata Cellular Versus. Union of India[1] and Kulja Industries Limited Versus. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others[2]. Mr. Shaikh would accordingly pray for setting aside of all the three impugned orders and for allotment of Plot No.27 in Petitioner’s favour.
10) The petition is opposed by Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-CIDCO. He would submit that the
Petitioner has no vested right of seeking allotment of Plot No.27 merely because it has emerged as the highest bidder in the tender process. That CIDCO had every right to cancel the tender process at its discretion. That being the land owner, CIDCO is entitled to explore the possibility of securing higher price in respect of the plot. That in the present case, CIDCO had received rate of Rs.2,12,589/in respect of Plot No.24 and therefore it would be against the interest of CIDCO to allot Plot No.27 to the Petitioner at a substantially low rate of Rs.1,42,578/-. That CIDCO is entitled in law to call upon the bidders to match the price of Plot No.24 in terms and conditions of tender. He would rely upon judgment of this Court in M/s. Infinity Infra and Anr. Versus. The City Industrial and Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and others[3] and M/s. Future Icon Builders LLP & Ors. Versus. The City Industrial and Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and others[4].
11) Mr. Sinha would further submit there is no discrimination meted out to the Petitioner. That Plot No. 26 was allotted to the highest bidder (Juhi Habitat) as the rate quoted by it was found to be within the range suggested by expert agency, M/s. Knight Frank. That CIDCO has now decided to realign/reorient the proposed market reservation of the Daily Bazar in respect of the plot abutting Plot No.27. That upon removal of such reservation, Plot No.27 is likely to fetch far better rate than the quoted rate of Rs.2,12,589/- qua Plot No.24. That recently in Scheme No.31 of the year 2022-2023, a Plot in Ghansoli Node has fetched a rate of Rs.4,05,620/- per sq.mtrs. That recently smaller plots in Ghansoli Node having lesser development potentials have fetched price above
4 Writ Petition No. 11360/2022 decided on 13 February 2025. Rs.3,00,000/- per sq.mtrs. He would therefore submit that CIDCO be permitted to explore the possibility of securing higher rate in respect of Plot No.27. He would accordingly pray for dismissal of the petition.
12) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for our consideration.
13) The Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking allotment of Plot No.27 in its favour on account of it emerging as the highest bidder in the auction process conducted by CIDCO. There is no dispute to the position that nine bidders had participated in the auction for Plot No.27 and the bid of the Petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,42,578/- was found to be highest amongst the nine bidders. However, it appears that numerous plots in the vicinity of Plot No.27 were contemporaneously auctioned by CIDCO. In respect of Plot No.24, CIDCO received bid at the rate of Rs.2,12,589/-. Coincidentally, the said bid was also submitted by the Petitioner. Petitioner has apparently received allotment in respect of Plot No.24 at the rate of Rs.2,12,589/-. Since Plot No. 24 fetched rate of Rs.2,12,583/-, CIDCO believed that all the plots contemporaneously auctioned in the same tender process in Ghansoli Node should also ideally receive the same rate. Accordingly, it issued communication dated 24 December 2021 to the Petitioner offering it Plot No.27 at the rate of Rs.2,12,589/- per sq.mtrs. Similar communications were also issued to all the highest bidders of plots in Ghansoli node. Petitioner did not accept the offer and instead challenged letter dated 24 December 2021 by filing Writ Petition No. 132/2022 in which an order was passed on 7 January 2022 granting liberty to the Petitioner to make a representation to the Managing Director, CIDCO by keeping the petition pending. After hearing the Petitioner, Vice Chairman and Managing Director, CIDCO passed order dated 23 March 2022 and instead of granting any relief in Petitioner’s favour, recalled the offer made to it vide letter dated 24 December 2021 by recording following reasons:- Observations:
1. I have carefully gone through the contents of the representations of the petitioner/ bidder, their oral submissions, comments of the Marketing & Planning Departments along with the analysis report of an independent expert agency.
2. Though the enough bidders have participated in the tender process, the highest rate received is far below than the existing market potential. The reason for receiving lower rate than market potential is the location of the market reservation plot at the front of the subject plot.
3. Hence, I have come to the conclusion that the proposed market reservation plot can be re-aligned within the same location thereby restoring the market potential of the subject plot as evident from the rates received for the adjacent plots i.e. plot no. 23, 24 & 26. This would fetch greater revenue for CIDCO which is a public organisation and public interest would be better served.
4. Therefore, I invoke the powers conferred under condition 10 of the Scheme booklet.
14) Thus far from allotting Plot No.27 to the Petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,42,578/- offered by him, CIDCO infact withdrew letter dated 24 December 2021 by which it had agreed to offer the plot to the Petitioner at the rate of Rs.2,12,589/-. The reason for doing so was that CIDCO decided to change the market reservation in respect of the adjoining plot with a view to fetch even higher rate for Plot No.27. This is how Petitioner lost even the offer made vide letter dated 24 December 2021 for purchase of the plot at the rate of Rs.2,12,589/- per sq.mtrs.
15) In the pending petition, Petitioner moved Interim Application for amendment in which order was passed on 2 August 2022 granting one more opportunity to the Petitioner to make representation to CIDCO and this time, the main petition was disposed of. In the second round of representation, Petitioner acquired knowledge that Plot No.26 had been allotted by CIDCO to Juhi Habitat as per the original bid submitted by it at the rate of Rs.1,72,245/-. Petitioner accordingly offered to purchase Plot No.27 at the rate of Rs.1,72,245/- per sq.mtrs.
CIDCO however rejected Petitioner’s offer by cryptic and unreasoned order dated 27 September 2023, which reads thus:- This is with above mentioned reference No. 4 of Hon. High Court order and subsequent representations submitted by you on 01,09.2022, 28.09.2022 & 20.09.2023, it is to inform to you that, Corporation has reviewed your case and reconfirmed the decision taken vide order dated 23.03.2022 to reject your offer for Plot No- 27, Sector-9, Node-Ghansoli in Scheme No.-MM/SCH-17/2021- 2022 and the EMD amount paid by you is being refunded to your bank account.
16) During the course of hearing of the present petition on 15 April 2025, when Petitioner alleged grant of discriminatory treatment qua the allottee of Plot No.26 (Jui Habitat), CIDCO sought time to deal with the objection of discrimination by filing additional Affidavit. Accordingly, CIDCO has filed Additional Affidavit dated 9 April 2025. The said Additional Affidavit makes an interesting reading and it would be apposite to extract paras-11 to 15 thereof which read thus:-
11. I further say that the highest bidder of Plot No. 26, had also not agreed to match the rates of Plot No. 24. I say that the Highest bidder of Plot No. 26 (namely Juhi Habitat) had originally quoted a price of Rs. 1,72,245/- per Sq. mt. I say that CIDCO has appointed an expert agency M/s Knight Frank to evaluate the rates for various plots which were tendered by CIDCO. I say that at that relevant time, the Expert agency had suggest a price range of Rs. 1,70,581/- to 1,97,799 for Plot No. 26 and therefore the corporation felt that the price quoted by the tenderer for Plot NO. 26, being within the suggested price range, was proper and allotted the said Plot No. 26 to said highest bidder.
12. I say that in the Petitioner has quoted a price of 1,42,578/-. The suggested price range by M/s Knight Frank at that relevant time, for petition plot was Rs. 1,39,840/- to 1,64,566/-.
13. I say that the present plot had fetched a lower rate on account of a proposed Daily Bazar Plot being adjacent to the petition plot which would have affected the frontage of the present plot.
14. I say that the Management was of the view that the market potential of the plot can be restored by realigning the market. Thus, the Managing Director in his order dated 23/03/2022 has proposed to realign/ reorient proposed marked reservation plot abutting to Plot No. 27. I say that after reorientation of the market plot, there is every likelihood of the present plot fetching a better rate.
15. I say that recently in scheme No. 31 of the year 2022-2023, a Plot No. 26 in sector 3 of Ghansoli Node, has fetched a rate of Rs. 4,05,620/- per Sq. Mt. I say that this indicates that the market conditions of the current date as compared to the market conditions in the year 2021 have significantly improved, hence the prices and market potential of plot have also increased. I say that recently the smaller plots in Ghansoli Node having lesser development potentials have also fetched price above Rs. 3,00,000/- per Sq. Mt.
17) The only justification offered by CIDCO for allotting Plot No.26 to Juhi Habitat at original quoted price of Rs.1,72,245/- per sq.mtrs. is the report of the expert agency M/s. Knight Frank. It is contended that M/s. Knight Frank had suggested the rate of Rs.1,70,581/- to Rs.1,97,799/- for Plot No. 26. It is therefore contended that since the price quoted for Juhi Habitat for Plot No.26 of Rs.1,72,245/- was within the range suggested by M/s. Knight Frank, CIDCO decided to allot Plot No.26 at the original quoted price.
18) However, in para-12, CIDCO has quoted the price range of expert agency, M/s. Knight Frank in respect of Plot No.27 as Rs.1,39,840/- to Rs.1,64,566/-. The original quoted price by the Petitioner of Rs.1,42,578/- is also within the price range suggested by expert agency, M/s. Knight Frank. Thus the reason for making allotment of Plot No.26 in favour of Juhi Habitat at originally quoted price existed in the case of the Petitioner as well. However, why similar treatment is not given to the Petitioner has not been explained in any manner in the Additional Affidavit dated 9 April 2025. The said Additional Affidavit makes the case of discrimination more apparent. We therefore hold that the action of the Respondent in not giving similar treatment to the Petitioner as is extended to the allottee of Plot No.26 (Juhi Habitat) is discriminatory. Also of relevance is the fact that Petitioner while highlighting the discriminatory treatment qua Plot No.26, had in fact offered to match the rate of Rs.1,72,245/for Plot No.27 in his representations. However, Managing Director, CIDCO has not decided either the aspect of discrimination nor has considered Petitioner’s offer while passing the impugned order dated 27 September 2023.
19) So far as the stand taken in the Additional Affidavit of realigining/reorientating of proposed market reservation of Plot abutting Plot No.27 is concerned, in our view the same is an irrelevant factor for deciding entitlement of Petitioner for allotment of the plot. The plot was advertised on the basis of current reservation in the development plan. The rates were quoted by the bidders by taking into consideration the factum of reservation of Daily Bazar on the adjoining plot.
CIDCO cannot advertise a plot, complete tender process and thereafter think of shifting the reservation of adjoining plot under the hope of securing higher market price. Even if the right of CIDCO in cancelling the tender process under a hope of securing better price after shifting of reservation of adjoining plot is to be momentarily recognized, it is seen that CIDCO has not cancelled the tender process on this ground. By maintaining the reservation of Daily Bazar on adjoining plot, CIDCO had offered to allot the plot to the Petitioner at the rate of Rs.2,12,589/- vide letter dated 24 December 2021. Thus, securing higher rate for Plot No.27 by shifting reservation in respect of the adjoining plot was never in the mind of CIDCO. This pretext appears to have been invented during pendency of litigation initiated by Petitioner. Mere pendency of the present petition cannot be a reason for CIDCO to think of a new reason for defeating the claim of the Petitioner by contending in the Additional Affidavit that it would secure a better rate after shifting of reservation. Again there is an element of discrimination in the applicability of reason of shifting of reservation. This reason of shifting of reservation with the hope of securing better rate is not made applicable in respect of Plot No.26 for which the original quoted offer of Rs.1,72,245/- has been accepted by CIDCO. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the pretext cited by CIDCO in the Additional Affidavit of possibility of securing higher rate after shifting of reservation of Daily Bazar on the adjoining plot. What is also of relevance is the fact that the decision to allot Plot No.26 to Juhi Habitat was taken on 23 March 2022 i.e. the same day on which Petitioner’s representation was rejected and offer letter dated 24 December 2021 was withdrawn. The reason of proposed shifting of market reservation was also cited in the order dated 23 March 2022. However, why the same reason was not made applicable while deciding to allot Plot No.26 at the original quoted rate has been explained in any manner. CIDCO, being an instrumentality of State must act fairly and cannot selectively apply the reason of shifting of market reservation only for Petitioner while allotting adjoining Plot No.26 to the bidder at originally quoted rate.
20) Considering the above position, we are fully convinced that CIDCO has acted arbitrarily and in a discriminatory manner. while taking decision in respect of allotment of Plot Nos.26 and 27. They have given discriminatory treatment to the Petitioner alteast qua the allottee of Plot No.26. Despite granting opportunity of justifying the action of allotment of Plot No.26 at originally quoted price, the Additional Affidavit filed on 9 April 2025 does not provide any justification. The Affidavit infact makes the case of discrimination even more glaring.
21) Reliance by CIDCO on judgments of this Court in M/s. Infinity Infra (supra) and M/s. Future Icon Builders LLP & Ors. (supra) is of little assistance to decide the issue at hand. Both the cases did not involve the element of discrimination, which is apparent in the present case. In both the cases, the auction process was cancelled due to administrative reasons. In the present case, the auction process was never cancelled and the Petitioner was called upon to match the rate in respect of Plot No.24 of Rs.2,12,589/-. Also in those cases, the plots were re-tendered and the successful bidders in fresh auction were before the Court opposing the petitions as their interests would have been affected by allotting plots to the Petitioners therein. It also appears that in all those cases, the tendered rate by the Petitioners was less than the price band suggested by expert agency, M/s. Knight Frank. In M/s. Future Icon Builders L.L.P., the bid was for Rs.56,700/- whereas the export agency Knight Frank suggested the price range of Rs.66,252/- to Rs. 81,105/-. Therefore there was valid reason for CIDCO to abandon the auction and go for fresh one, which is not the case here. Also upon retendering the plot, CIDCO got offer of Rs.1,75,689/- per sq.mtr. The facts of that case are thus clearly distinguishable. Also while deciding M/s. Infinity Infra, this Court referred to the decision in Aditya Enterprises Versus. CIDCO[5], judgment authored by one of us (Sandeep V. Marne, J.). In that case again, the rates suggested by M/s. Knight Frank were higher than the bid submitted by the Petitioners therein. For Plot No.37, the expert agencies range was Rs.1,40,305/- to Rs.1,65,500/- whereas the bid of Petitioner therein was for Rs.1,19,925/-. Similarly, for Plot No.38, the expert agencies range was from Rs.1,48,671/- to Rs.1,74,797/- against Petitioners offer of Rs.1,31,399/- Thus the facts in the case of Aditya Enterprises are also distinguishable. It is well settled that a decision is an authority for which it is decided and not what can be logically deduced therefrom. It is also well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision [SEE Bhavnagar University Versus. Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. and Ors.,[6] ]. Most importantly, those cases did not involve any allegation of discrimination. In our view, therefore reliance by Mr. Sinha on judgments in M/s. Infinity Infra and M/s. Future Icon Builders LLP & Ors. is misplaced.
22) Considering the overall conspectus of the case, we are of the view that the action of CIDCO in giving discriminatory treatment qua Plot No.27 as compared to the treatment given to the allottee qua Plot No.26 is clearly discriminatory. Being an instrumentality of State, even in the tender matters, it is the responsibility of CIDCO to act reasonably and fairly. Though the Courts usually do not sit in
5 Writ Petition No.15601/2022 decided on 20 April 2023 appeal over the decision of State Instrumentalities in contractual matters, in the event it is noticed that a State Instrumentality has not acted fairly, reasonably and in a transparent manner, the Court would be justified in interfering even in contractual decisions. In M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd, Jabalpur Versus. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.7, the Apex Court has dealt with the scope of judicial review in contractual matters and has held in paras-82.2, 82.[3] and 82.[4] as under:
82.2. The principle laid down in Bareilly Development Authority [Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajai Pal Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 116] that in the case of a non-statutory contract the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract and the decisions, which are purported to be followed, including Radhakrishna Agarwal [Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar, (1977) 3 SCC 457], may not continue to hold good, in the light of what has been laid down in ABL [ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553] and as followed in the recent judgment in Sudhir Kumar Singh [State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706:
82.3. The mere fact that relief is sought under a contract which is not statutory, will not entitle the respondent State in a case by itself to ward off scrutiny of its action or inaction under the contract, if the complaining party is able to establish that the action/inaction is, per se, arbitrary.
82.4. An action will lie, undoubtedly, when the State purports to award any largesse and, undoubtedly, this relates to the stage prior to the contract being entered into (see Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] ). This scrutiny, no doubt, would be undertaken within the nature of the judicial review, which has been declared in the decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651]. Though the judgment in M.P. Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur (supra) is distinguished in Aditya Enterprises (supra) this Court has held in para-23 as under:
23. Faced with the problem of non-existence of any enforceable right in in absence of a completed contract, reliance is placed by petitioners on the judgment in M.P. Power (supra). However, in the judgment of the Apex Court it is held an auction would lie when the State purports to award any largesse and in auction process, court's scrutiny is permitted even prior to execution of contract. There can be no debate about this proposition as judicial review by courts is not completely ousted in tender matters. In appropriate cases, involving non-adherence to proper procedure or violation of terms and conditions of tender document or existence of complete arbitrariness, courts would be justified in interfering in the tender process, even before execution of contract. In our view, CIDCO has clearly acted arbitrarily in the present case by giving discriminatory treatment to similarly placed bidders. In that view of the matter, the impugned decisions of CIDCO refusing to allot Plot No.27 to the Petitioner deserves to be set aside.
23) Mr. Shaikh has fairly submitted that though original quoted price of the Petitioner was Rs.1,42,578/- per sq.mtrs., it is willing to match the quoted rate of Rs.1,72,245/- at which adjoining Plot No.26 is allotted by CIDCO to Juhi Habitat. Since Petitioner has voluntarily increased the offer from Rs.1,42,578/- per sq.mtrs to Rs.1,72,245/- per sq.mtrs, the allotment of Plot No.26 needs to be made in favour of the Petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,72,245/-. This offer also partially satisfies the quest of CIDCO of securing higher price for Plot No.27. Infact the offer of Rs.1,72,245/- goes beyond the M/s. Knight Frank range of Rs.1,39,840/- to Rs.1,64,566/-.
24) The petition accordingly succeeds and we proceed to pass the following order:
(i) Orders dated 24 December 2021, 23 March 2022 and 27 September 2023 are set aside.
(ii) CIDCO is directed to issue allotment letter in respect of
Plot No.27 in the name of the Petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,72,245/- per sq.mtrs. on usual terms and conditions within a period of 6 weeks.
25) With the above directions, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]