Sandeep Uttam Bodke v. The State of Maharashtra

3.13. On 18.04.2022, the impugned communication was issued by the Deputy Chief Officer / Marketing Department, MHADA informing Petitioner that Chief Officer, MHADA had cancelled his allotment under Regulation 18(1) since he did not deposit the balance amount within the stipulated time and called upon him to file Appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Vice President, MHADA alongwith all documentary evidence within 15 days form the date of receipt of the 4 of 28 said letter.

3.14. On 19.04.2022, Petitioner filed Appeal before Appellate Authority; Appeal was dismissed by the impugned order dated 02.05.2022.

3.15. Hence the present Petition.

4. Answering Respondent – MHADA filed Affidavit-in-Reply dated 27.12.2022 affirmed by Mr. Rajendra Gaikwad, Deputy Chief Officer (Marketing) of MHADA, followed by a additional Affidavit-in- Reply dated 21.03.2023. Petitioner filed Affidavit-in-Rejoinder dated 28.03.2023.

5. Mr. Ugle, learned Advocate appearing for Petitioner has made the following submissions:-

5.1. That the impugned communication dated 18.04.2022 intimating cancellation of allotment has been issued by Deputy Chief Officer recording therein that Chief Officer has cancelled Petitioner’s allotment under Regulation 18(1). However, under Regulation 18(1) the Chief Officer is required to take a decision on the basis of his satisfaction of any fresh evidence placed before him which satisfaction has not been recorded in the present case; hence the impugned communication is bad in law. That the order passed by Chief Officer under Regulation 18(1) has not been issued to Petitioner, save and 5 of 28 except the above intimation letter. Hence, Petitioner is bereft of the reasons given by the Chief Officer for cancelling his allotment and there is violation of the principles of natural justice;

5.2. That Petitioner filed statutory Appeal against the impugned communication issued by Deputy Chief Officer immediately on the next date i.e. 29.04.2022 under Regulation 18(4);

5.3. That the period for deposit was extended by MHADA by its public notice dated 25.11.2021 which ought to have been considered since Petitioner was hospitalized on two separate occasions immediately after the second Covid wave and despite depositing Rs.3,90,000/- with MHADA, he had genuine reasons for not depositing the balance amount which was brought to the notice of the Competent Authority;

5.4. That admittedly Petitioner was an allottee between January 2020 to June 2021; that his Application and Appeal, both were pending and decided during the extended period of limitation, which stood duly extended by the Supreme Court upto 90 days after 28.02.2022 and even by MHADA itself upto 16.01.2022;

5.5. That it ought to have been considered by the Competent Authority i.e. Chief Officer, MHADA that considering allotment to Petitioner under LIG, Petitioner was required to raise loan from a financial Institution / Bank which the Petitioner could only do so 6 of 28 jointly alongwith his wife Ms. Sneha Sandeep Bodke as co-applicant from Cent Bank Home Finance Limited, a subsidiary of Central Bank of India which agreed to sanction home loan at the request of the Petitioner on 20.04.2022 and Petition had duly stated the said fact in his Appeal dated 19.04.2022.

5.6. That the letter dated 29.08.2022 given by Petitioner seeking withdrawal of the amount deposited was withdrawn by him by a subsequent letter dated 20.09.2022 within one month and Petitioner gave adequate and cogent reason precluding him from depositing the balance amount and sought extension of time and permission to deposit the balance amount, which ought to have been considered by the Competent Authority in letter and spirit; and that there is no suppression of facts on the part of Petitioner as alleged by Respondent - MHADA in its Affidavit-in-Reply; that Petitioner was always ready and willing to pay the balance amount of consideration alongwith interest for securing his allotment and he at the then time submitted adequate reasons in his Application and Appeal for seeking permission and extension of time;

5.7. That this Court has in the case of Mallayya L. Dulam Vs. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Anr.[1] where MHADA had cancelled allotment of residential tenements for non submission of documents permitted extension of time to 1 IA No.4379 of 2021 in AO No.523 of 2021 decided on 31.12.2021 7 of 28 successful allottees under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in its discretion and quashed and set aside the impugned communication of cancellation of allotment and gave consequential directions for deposit of the balance amount. He would submit that, Petitioner in the present case has now raised the entire balance amount by a hand loan and is ready and willing to deposit the same with MHADA alongwith the stipulated interest and the Demand Draft for the balance amount to pay over to MHADA is kept ready by him;

5.8. On the basis of the above submissions, he has urged to set aside the cancellation order and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority.

6. PER-CONTRA, Mr. Lad, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent – MHADA would submit that as per the letter of allotment dated 04.03.2021, Petitioner was put to notice that he had to pay the entire purchase price of Rs.29,17,914 in two tranches namely 25% of the purchase price i.e. Rs.7,29,478.[5] to be paid within 30 days after excluding 15 days from the date of the Provisional Offer Letter and the balance 75% of the purchase price i.e. Rs.21,88,435.[5] within the period of 60 thereafter; that Petitioner did not even pay the entire amount under the first tranch itself; 8 of 28

6.1. He has drawn my attention to Exhibit ‘H’ i.e. the provisional offer letter dated 04.03.2021 and would submit that in so far as the first installment is concerned, it was mandatory for Petitioner to deposit the said amount within the period of 45 days as stated therein and no right enured to him for seeking any extension of time for payment of the first installment as it was not provided. However, Mr. Lad in his usual fairness would submit that in so far as payment of the second installment i.e. balance 75% amount was concerned, it was permissible for an allottee to make an appropriate Application before the Deputy Chief Officer for seeking extension of time for deposit of the same, albeit which could be allowed only on payment of interest @ 13.5% per annum. He would submit that Petitioner not only derelicted and breached payment of the first installment on its due date but subsequently on 04.08.2021 without notice to MHADA deposited the amount of Rs.3,90,000/- in the Bank account of MHADA held with Axis Bank which was only a part payment and not the entire amount of the first installment and therefore he cannot plead equity on his side and seek quashing and setting aside of the impugned order. He would submit that in so far as the first installment is concerned, it was impermissible for any allottee much less the Petitioner in this case to either make part payment and/or even seek extension of time and therefore payment of amount fully of the first tranch of 25% was absolutely mandatory in nature; 9 of 28

6.2. Next he would submit that Petitioner was an allottee under the LIG scheme / category wherein MHADA would construct the said tenement on a no profit basis and would also charge no profit to an allottee. He would submit that on the date of issuance of provisional offer letter itself there were an equal number of allottees on the waiting list and in view of breach of the terms and conditions of payment by Petitioner, a substantive right was created in favour of the allottees on the waiting list. He would submit that waiting list was prepared under Regulations of MHADA and in view of the same Petitioner is not entitled for any relief;

6.3. He would submit that by virtue of resolution No.6637 dated 24.10.2013 passed by MHADA it was decided by MHADA that in so far as extension of time to deposit the amount under the second tranch of payment to be made by the allottee is concerned, extension of time would be granted for a maximum period of 105 days from the date of payment of the first tranch but with levy of interest at the rate of 13.5% per annum and this applied only in the case of delay in payment of the second tranch;

6.4. He next referred to and relied upon Section 185 of the MHADA Act submitting that in view thereof, Resolution No.6637 passed by MHADA is required to be adhered to in its true letter and spirit as it has been passed in consonance and accordance with 10 of 28 MHADA Act and MHADA rules; that the resolution was passed under the provisions of MHADA Regulations and more specifically Regulation No.9 thereof. He has drawn my attention to Regulation No. 9 relating to Application for tenements readwith Regulation No.13 relating to eligibility and Regulation No.17 relating to intimation of allotment of tenements and Regulation No.18 relating to withdrawal of allotment and would submit that in the facts of the present case considering that Petitioner did not deposit the amount under the first tranch itself, Petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever and the impugned communication dated 18.04.2022 and Appellate Authority's order dated 02.05.2022 deserved to be sustained and upheld by this Court.

6.5. Lastly he would submit that in view of the letter of withdrawal dated 29.08.2022 filed by Petitioner seeking refund of the amount deposited by him, Petitioner was estopped from now claiming any entitlement to allotment of tenement as it amounted to surrendering his right of allotment. He has therefore urged to dismiss the Petition and uphold the impugned order as correctly passed.

7. I have heard Mr. Ugle, learned Advocate appearing of the Petitioner; Mr. Gore, learned AGP for the State and Mr. Lad, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.[2] and 3 – MHADA at length and with their able assistance perused the pleadings and record of the case. Submissions made by the learned Advocates have received due 11 of 28 consideration of this Court.

8. In the present case, it it seen that Petitioner was issued the allotment letter on 04.03.2021. Judicial notice has been taken of the fact that from 18.03.2021 the second Covid wave effected a complete lockdown in our country and the second lockdown was in effect from 16.03.2021 to 28.06.2021. Cognizance of this fact has been taken by MHADA in respect of all allotments / provisional allotments made between January 2020 to June 2021 and extension of time has been granted to such allottees for a period of 90 days extending upto 16.01.2022. This cognizance was taken by MHADA by issuing a Public Notice dated 25.11.2021 and giving benefit to all allottees retrospectively from 15.01.2020. It is pertinent to note that on 04.08.2021 during the aforementioned period Petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.3,90,000/- with the answering Respondent – MHADA without even being aware of the extension granted by MHADA.

9. Another pertinent incident which is required to be noted during the interregnum is the fact that admittedly Petitioner was hospitalized on two different occasions between 22.10.2021 to 30.10.2021 and 03.12.2021 to 08.12.2021 for treatment of acute interstitial edematous pancreatitis and enteric fever and chronic pancreatitis. Appended to the Petition at Exhibit ‘K’ - page No.50 to page No.96 are the two discharge Report cards of the Hospital 12 of 28 alongwith the entire medical history of Petitioner which has been perused by me and I have no reason to disbelieve the same. One more notable feature which needs consideration is that allotment to the Petitioner of the subject flat / tenement was under LIG category. It is unfathomable to assume and think that an allottee in LIG category would have immediate liquidity available with him readily, much less adequate liquidity with him and in all probability would after the provisional offer letter certifying his eligibility and allotment be required to approach a Bank / Nationalized Bank / Financial Institution for procuring a housing loan.

10. In the present case, one needs to understand the aforementioned timeline in its proper perspective. Petitioner in the present case, immediately after lifting of the second lockdown period as is seen was hospitalized. It is seen that immediately after his discharge from hospital on 08.12.2021, Petitioner filed the Application seeking extension of time dated 30.12.2021 being oblivious of the fact that even MHADA had infact permitted extension of time for all allottees between January 2020 to June 2021 upto 16.01.2022.

11. Facts and circumstances enumerated by Petitioner and outlined herein above are backed by cogent material which are placed on record in the Writ Petition. It is seen that after being intimated about cancellation of allotment, on 19.04.2022, Petitioner addressed 13 of 28 the Appeal to the Appellate Authority under Regulation 18(4) explaining his reasons for delay and further informing that Cent Bank Home Finance Limited had accorded sanction for giving home loan to the Petitioner and his wife jointly. The Appeal dated 19.04.2022 discloses the acknowledgment of the office of the Appellate Authority on the face of the letter. It is pertinent to note that contents of the pleadings dated 30.12.2021 (Application for extension) and 19.04.2022 (Appeal) ought to have been considered by the Authorities to record their satisfaction and reasons as required under Regulations 18(1) and 18(4) of MHADA Regulations and the Competent Authority / Appellate Authority were not required to merely scrutinize and check the letter. On reading the impugned order passed under Regulation 18(4), it clearly shows that the Appellate Authority has merely stated that letter was scrutinized and checked and no reasons are given for dismissing the Appeal filed by Petitioner. Absence of consideration is the moot point in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and more specifically in the facts and circumstances of the present case which are alluded to herein above. In so far as the order under Regulation 18(1) is concerned, record shows that the said order passed by the Chief Officer of MHADA has not even been served upon Petitioner. The letter dated 18.04.2022 by Deputy Chief Officer merely communicates the decision of the Chief Officer under Regulation 18(1) to Petitioner. Order, if any, under Regulation 18(1) 14 of 28 has not been placed on record by MHADA, despite filing two Affidavits to oppose the Petition.

12. Next it is seen that extension of time to deposit the balance amount in respect of all flat allottees having allotment between January 2020 and June 2021 was extended by publication of public notice dated 25.11.2021 by MHADA itself. What is pertinent to note here is the fact that it relates to back to an allottee who may have been a successful allottee as far back as in January 2020.

MHADA has thus extended the benefit and permitted extension of time to a successful allottee as far as back in January 2020 to enable him to pay the balance amount upto 16.01.2022. Petitioner’s allotment was on 04.03.2021. Hence Petitioner even otherwise should be entitled for extension of time, even on parity with an allottee who was successful in January 2020. MHADA’s extension letter does not discriminate between making of payment under the two tranches.

13. In the present case, date of provisional allotment letter to the Petitioner after considering his eligibility is dated 04.03.2021, when for the first time he was directed and intimated to pay the consideration amounts in two tranches. What is pertinent to be noted herein is the fact that benefit of the first Covid wave was also given to all those allottees from January 2020 onwards despite the fact that the first Covid period kicked in only on 18.03.2020. The reason for this is that an allottee having an allotment of a tenement would be required 15 of 28 to raise funds for effecting payment of the consideration amounts for the allotted flat on his own or through Bank / Financial Institution and it would take a minimum of 45 to 60 days to obtain sanction as well as disbursement depending upon the net worth of the allottee / Applicant for such a loan. Hence MHADA, being conscious of this fact had given extension of time to all allottees from 16.01.2020 onwards.

14. It is seen that the sanction letter of Cent Bank Home Finance Limited dated 20.04.2022 (Exhibit “S” page No.108 of Petition) placed on record by Petitioner in the present case states that the validity of the said letter is 30 days from the date of its issue and the amount of home loan of Rs.26,00,000/- is sanctioned in favour of Petitioner on the basis of his income and subject to the said flat being secured by way of equitable mortgage with the concerned Bank.

15. Though Petitioner has been allotted the tenement under LIG scheme in the open category and he has filed his Application under open category, Mr. Ugle would submit that the Petitioner belongs to Mali community (OBC). However, this would not be material for consideration.

16. In so far as the issue that Petitioner having given withdrawal letter dated 29.08.2022 is concerned, I have considered the subsequent letter given in the following month on 20.09.2022 wherein the Petitioner has explained cogent reasons for withdrawing the said 16 of 28 letter dated 29.08.2022 and sought extension of time to pay the balance amount. There is no suppression on the part of the Petitioner as alleged by MHADA. The said letter is appended at page No.109 to the Petition and the subsequent letter dated 20.09.2022 is also appended at page No.110 to the Petition. On consideration of the letter dated 20.09.2022 and the reasons mentioned therein which pertain to medical condition suffered by Petitioner as also delineated herein above, I am inclined to accept the case of Petitioner that he was indeed indisposed on medical grounds not only due to his medical condition but also due to the Covid lockdown period which affected life of mankind throughout the country and these reasons cannot be disbelieved in the wake of adequate material placed on record by the Petitioner.

17. From a perusal of the suo moto orders passed by the Supreme Court, it is absolutely clear that the period of limitation stood extended upto 28.02.2022 and the benefit of the same therefore also needs to be extended to the Petitioner. In that view of the matter, it is seen that in the present case, the first communication addressed to the Petitioner rejecting this allotment is dated 18.04.2022 and pursuant to filing of the Appeal the impugned order was passed on 02.05.2022 by the Appellate Authority. What is crucial is the fact that without considering the Applications filed by the Petitioner during the period 17 of 28 when the limitation stood extended even according to MHADA upto 16.01.2022 and as per the suo moto orders passed by the Supreme Court upto 28.02.2022 and even 90 days thereafter, it is seen that within a period of 45 days from 16.01.2022, Petitioner’s allotment was cancelled. It is pertinent to note that in the cancellation letter issued to the Petitioner, the Competent Authority has not recorded its satisfaction in reference to the two specific letters addressed by the Petitioner seeking extension of time. All that the cancellation letter dated 29.08.2022 issued by Deputy Chief Officer, MHADA and not the Competent Authority would state is that Petitioner was allotted the subject tenement by provisional offer letter and he failed to pay the entire consideration of the tenement within the stipulated period of time and therefore it was assumed that Petitioner was not interested in allotment of the tenement and hence under Regulation 18(1), the Chief Officer has cancelled his allotment. The finding recorded in the impugned communication dated 18.4.2022 clearly militates against the provisions of Regulation 18(1) of MHADA Regulations. Sub-section (1) clearly envisages recording of satisfaction of the Competent Authority i.e. Chief Officer, MHADA which is clearly absent in the present case. All that the rejection letter 18.04.2022 would state is that under Regulation 18(1), sanction has been accorded for cancellation of the Petitioner’s allotment by the Chief Officer of MHADA since Petitioner failed to pay the entire consideration and 18 of 28 nothing more. It thereafter calls upon Petitioner to file statutory Appeal within 15 days if so desired with strong reasons and documents and evidence for not being able to pay the sale price within the prescribed period before the Vice President, MHADA i.e. Appellate Authority. Petitioner’s Appeal is filed immediately on the next date wherein the Petitioner in fact places on record the reasons, iner alia, pertaining to his medical condition during the Covid period and gives reference to his two Applications dated 31.12.2020 and 19.04.2022 and seeks time of one month to deposit the entire balance consideration. The Petitioner categorically inform and states in his Appeal that loan has been sanctioned in his favour by Cent Bank Home Finance Ltd., a subsidiary of Central Bank of India. The letter issued by Cent bank Home Finance Ltd is dated 20.04.2022 and issued in the name of Petitioner and his wife as Co-Applicant. Petitioner has shown his bonafides by placing the sanction letter of the home loan sanctioned by Cent Bank Home Finance Ltd. dated 20.04.2022 at Exhibit “S” (Page 108) of the Petition. The Appellate Authority ought to have considered this aspect when the impugned order was passed on 02.05.2022. The Appellate Authority has not considered the fact that while cancelling the allotment, the Chief Officer, MHADA has not even recorded his satisfaction. Further the Appellate Authority does not record any reasons while issuing the order dated 02.05.2022 and merely concludes by giving a one line finding stating that on the basis 19 of 28 of the facts of the case and the documents annexed by the Petitioner to his Appeal and after hearing the Petitioner, the Appeal stands dismissed. Not a single document referred to and relied upon by the Petitioner is discussed by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order.

18. The facts and circumstances of the present case combined with the medical condition of Petitioner which has been duly explained over by appending all such details at Exhibit - “K” to the Petition and in view of the fact that the Petitioner has shown a resolve by way of two Applications on 30.12.2021, 19.04.2022 and more specifically in view of the nation wide lockdown of Covid having affected mankind, I am inclined to accept the case of the Petitioner. The impugned order dated 02.05.2022 of the Appellate Authority is sans any reasons which ought to have been returned on the basis of the Application of the Petitioner. Even the intimation dated 18.04.2022 under Regulation No.18(1) of the MHADA Regulations is without recording satisfaction of the Chief Officer as contemplated under the Regulation and is therefore not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.

19. In this context, the order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 needs to be referred to. The said order states that by order dated 23.03.2020 20 of 28 the Supreme Court extended the period of limitation prescribed under the general law or special laws whether compoundable or not w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders and the order dated 23.03.2020 was extended from time to time. However after considering the suggestions of the learned Attorney General for India, the Supreme Court issued the following directions:- “(i) In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.

(ii) In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

(iii) The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

(iv) The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment Zones, to state. “Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related requirements.” 21 of 28

19.1. What is relevant are the directions contained in clause (ii) herein above.

20. It would be further necessary to refer to and rely upon the further order passed by the Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022 in Misc. Application No.21 of 2022 filed in Misc. Application No.665 of 2021 which was field in Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No.3 of 2020. While referring to the order dated 23.03.2020 the Supreme Court had directed extension of the period of limitation to all persons before Courts / Tribunals including the Supreme Court w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders. On 08.03.2021, the order dated 23.03.2020 was brought to an end, permitting the relaxation of period of limitation between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021.

21. However while doing so, it was made clear that the period of limitation would start from 15.03.2021 once again. Thereafter due to the second surge in Covid-19 cases, Misc. Application No.665 of 2021 seeking restoration of the order dated 23.03.2020 relaxing limitation was filed before the Supreme Court. That Application was disposed of by order dated 23.09.2021 wherein the Supreme Court extended the period of limitation all proceedings / Court/ Tribunal till 02.10.2021.

22. In the above context, Misc. Application No.21 of 2022 came to be filed before the Supreme Court and considering the then prevailing conditions and the impact of the surge of the Covid-19 virus 22 of 28 on public health and adversities faced by the litigants in the prevailing conditions, the Supreme Court passed the following directions:-

“I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.

II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.

III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till

28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.”

22.1. From the above, what is important are the directions contained in clause III above.

23. The Supreme Court directed that in cases where the limitation would have expired during the period 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. This would be the minimum period available to any person whose 23 of 28 limitation would have expired during the period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.202. Considering the above and applying the same to the facts in the Petitioner in the present case, it is seen that within 45 days of 16.01.2022 the allotment of Petitioner was cancelled by the Chief Officer, MHADA under the provisions of Regulation 18(1) of the MHADA Regulations.

24. The date of intimation by the Deputy Chief Officer of the cancellation of allotment to Petitioner is 18.04.2022 and this letter is impugned in the present Writ Petition. Being aggrieved, Petitioner filed the statutory Appeal before the Vice President as alluded and observed herein above; the statutory Appeal was dismissed without considering any of the facts presented by Petitioner and without applying the directions contained in the Suo Motu orders passed by the Supreme Court as detailed herein above.

25. In view of what is discussed herein above, the impugned communication issued by Dy. Chief Officer of MHADA intimating rejection of allotment by the Chief Officer, MHADA dated 18.04.2022 Exh. “M” and and the impugned order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the Chief Executive Officer i.e. Appellate Authority are not sustainable and deserve to be interfered with and set aside. In the facts of the present case, it was incumbent upon MHADA to give an opportunity to Petitioner in April 2022 itself when the financial institution i.e. Cent 24 of 28 Bank Home Finance Ltd, a subsidiary of Central Bank of India had sanctioned the loan to him. Without even referring to the same or even for that matter considering the same, Petitioner’s allotment has been cancelled. The action on the part of the Chief Executive Officer, MHADA while according to his sanction for cancellation of allotment and as informed to the Petitioner by the Dy. Chief Officer in his communication dated 18.04.2022 is not only arbitrary but it lacks material particulars as are required to be adhered to under the provisions of Regulation 18(1) and therefore such a cancellation deserves to be set aside. Equally for the reasons stated and alluded to herein above, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is also not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.

26. Even considering the period of limitation having been extended upto 90 days from 01.03.2022 and considering the pendency of the Petitioner’s Appeal during the interregnum, Petitioner would have been entitled to the said benefit for effecting the balance payment. Having denied the Petitioner this valuable right, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and the impugned communication dated 18.04.2022 issued by the Deputy Chief Officer intimating the decision of the Chief Officer under Regulation 18(1) of the MHADA Regulations are bad in law and deserve to be quashed and set aside. Hence for the aforementioned reasons, the impugned 25 of 28 communication dated 18.04.2022 alongwith the impugned order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority are quashed and set aside with the following consequential directions:-

(i) Petitioner shall forthwith deposit the entire balance amount as per the purchase price of the tenement allotted to him with MHADA within a period of five (5) weeks from the date of uploading of this judgment;

(ii) Petitioner is directed to pay simple interest @ 13.5% per annum on the balance amount from the date of due payment of the said amounts as per the two installments stated in the provisional offer letter of allotment issued to the Petitioner.

MHADA shall calculate this amount and intimate to the Petitioner to pay the same within one (1) week from receipt of copy of this order;

(iii) On the Petitioner depositing the balance amount,

MHADA is directed to complete the procedure for entering into the registered Agreement with the Petitioner and hand over possession of the tenement to the Petitioner within a period of one week from the date of registration of the Agreement; 26 of 28

(iv) The above exercise of execution and registration alongwith handing over possession of the tenement to the Petitioner shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of payment by the Petitioner of the remaining balance amount as directed herein above.

27. After the operative part of the judgment is dictated in open Court, Mr. Lad, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.[2] and 3 – MHADA would submit that this Court be pleased to stay the judgment for a period of four weeks to enable MHADA to challenge the same in the Superior Court.

28. Since Mr. Lad would submit that there are similar such cases wherein delay has occurred and they will all otherwise be benefited by this judgment and hence MHADA should be given an opportunity to challenge the same.

29. It is clarified that observations and findings in the present case are solely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the Petitioner’s case. However considering Mr. Lad’s request for stay, the present judgment is stayed for a period of four (4) weeks from the date of uploading this judgment to enable MHADA to approach the Superior Court. 27 of 28

30. However it is clarified that, no further extension of time shall be granted to MHADA by this Court beyond the period of four weeks since consequential directions have been given by this Court as alluded to herein above to Petitioner and MHADA which shall be followed after the above period is over.

31. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

32. With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 28 of 28 TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE