1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8679 OF 2009 ... Shri Hiten Chinubhai Shah and anr. ...Petitioners v/s. City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. ...Respondents ... Mr.S.R.Borulkar with Mr.Kunal Cheema i/b Ms.Reena Salunkhe for the Petitioners. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & A.R.JOSHI, JJ DATED: 6th January, 2010 P.C.: 1. The Petitioners by this petition challenges cancellation of allotment of apartment which was allotted to the Petitioners. Four installments were to be 2 paid by the Petitioners. Each installment was of Rs.16,46,000/-. It appears that the Petitioners paid first two installments. Third installment was due on 28-6-2008. The Petitioners applied for extension of time to make the payment. That extension was granted and time was extended till 26-8-2008 for paying third installment. Admittedly, by 26-8-2008 neither the Petitioners paid the third installment nor did he apply to CIDCO for grant of further time to make the payment. The fourth installment became due on 26-9-2008. The Petitioners neither applied for extension of time nor did he deposit the installment, which was due on 26-9-2008. It appears that on 14th October, 2008 the Petitioners addressed a letter seeking extension of time for payment of third installment. He also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. It is pertinent to 3 note that though by that date fourth installment had become due, he did not even mention that in his letter. On 6-11-2008 show cause notice was issued to the Petitioners asking him to show cause why the allotment in their favour should not be cancelled and the earnest money deposited should not be forfeited. Admittedly, this show cause notice has been received by the Petitioners. Fifteen days time was given to file their reply. No reply was filed admittedly by the Petitioners. On 3-2-2009 the Petitioners addressed a letter to the Respondents and tendered the amount of third and fourth installment. He requested the Respondents to condone the delay and accept the payment. It is pertinent to note that though he was paying the installment which had become due in August, 2008 and September, 2008 in February, 2009 and though he had offered to 4 pay 12% interest on the amount, no amount of interest was tendered. Ultimately, the Corporation cancelled the allotment. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the action of the Respondents. The Petitioners have annexed a copy of Resolution passed by the Respondents granting extension of time to deposit installment in relation to some other scheme. Perusal of that Resolution shows that extension of time has been granted by the Respondents on certain conditions for depositing the installments dues. It appears that the scheme in relation to which that Resolution is passed was a scheme for Non- Resident Indian and due to global recession they were not able to pay the installment and many of them surrendered apartment allotted to them. To solve that situation the Respondent decided to grant them extension. According to the Petitioners, as by the 5 Resolution the allottees under that scheme have been granted extension, the Petitioners should also be granted extension. But the material placed on record shows that there is no parity between the allottees of the scheme in relation to which extension has been granted and the scheme under which the Petitioners were made the allotment. The scheme in relation to which the extension has been granted appears to be a scheme for the N.R.I. Perusal of the Resolution shows that time for payment of installment which falls due in December, 2008 has been granted by Resolution which has been passed in the month of December, 2008 and the reason that has been given is global recession. In so far as the case of the Petitioners is concerned, the Petitioners have not even applied for grant of extension before the time for making the payment was over. It is also not clear from 6 the record as to whether the Petitioners were also affected by the global recession. 2. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, as we do not find any parity between the persons who are covered by the Resolution and the Petitioners, the Petitioners cannot complaint of any discrimination. Petition has no substance. It is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.R.JOSHI, J.)