1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1276 OF 2007 1. Jaimalsingh S/o Gurucharansingh Randhawa, Age : 51 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Narayan Plaza, Flat No. 3, Cannaught Garden, CIDCO, Aurangabad. 2. Surindersingh S/o Pratamsingh Randhawa, Age : 48 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Narayan Plaza, Flat No. 3, Cannaught Garden, CIDCO, Aurangabad... .. .. ..Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. City and Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad, through its Administrator, Aurangabad. 3. Shri Vasant S/o Gulabrao Salunke, Age : Major, Occu. : Service, R/o "Megh Malhar", Cannaught Garden, Flat No. 103, B. Wing, First Floor, Cannaught Garden, CIDCO, Aurangabad... .. .. ..Respondents 2 Shri R. N. Dhorde, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri S. K. Tambe, A. G. P. for the Respondent No.1. Shri A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. Shri S. P. Shah, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 14TH JULY, 2009. ORAL ORDER [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. The petitioner Jaimalsingh Gurucharansingh Randhawa was initially allotted residential-cum- commercial plot No. 76 in N-2/A, CIDCO, Jalna Road on the high way in the year 1994. According to the petitioners in the year 1996, the petitioner asked for permission to start hotel with permit room and sought construction permission. Accordingly, permission was granted and hotel was constructed. Thereafter, CIDCO denied permission to start permit room, but permitted to construct lodging. The permission was given in the year 2005 and in the year 2006 lodging was constructed. The said plot was allotted to Mr. Jaimalsingh on higher bid basis. In the further allotment system by lottery, 3 the petitioners applied jointly and in the lucky draw the petitioners got the plot which bears No. 207/B, N-3 Sector of CIDCO. The said plot was allotted for residential purposes. Along with the application petitioner had submitted an undertaking to CIDCO. According to CIDCO, when they realized that the petitioner No. 1 was allotted residential- cum-commercial plot, under the scheme and orders passed by this Court, second allotment of plot was not permissible, by letter dated 18.01.2007 a show cause notice was issued and finally by communication dated 09.02.2007 the allotment was canceled by the CIDCO under the written communication (Exh. "M"). This action and decision of CIDCO is challenged in this petition. 2. In substance the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Ramesh Dhorde is that theory of allotment of one person one open plot cannot be applied in the facts of this case, because residential-cum-commercial plot cannot be 4 equated with the plot reserved for residential purpose alone. The counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the definition of dictionary, meaning of hotel, lodging house, lodging place and lodging, to buttress the argument that after petitioner developed the plot No. 76, N-2, the CIDCO is estopped from cancelling the second allotment which was obtained in the joint name of both the petitioners. According to learned counsel, principles of promissory estoppel would operate in the facts of the case. In support of this principle, reliance was placed on reported judgments (1) AIR 1988 SC 1247, Asst. Commr., Commercial (Asst.) v. Dharmendra Trading Co. and(2) AIR 1979 SC 621 M. P. Sugar Mills v. State of U. P. We have perused the judgments. The second limb of argument of learned counsel is relating to malafides, which are contended and raised against the respondent No. 3, who happened to be administrator at that relevant time. Much emphasis was laid by the counsel that at the behest of local 5 Member of Legislative Assembly and the Urban Development Minister, the plot No. 207/B was to be allotted to the favourite of the highly placed person in the power. Therefore, the administrator impressed upon the petitioner No. 1 to surrender the possession, as petitioner was reluctant, action of cancellation was taken. 3. Learned counsel Shri Bajaj appearing for CIDCO submits that theory of malafides is absolutely irrelevant in the facts of the case. The allotment of plot of CIDCO are governed by the Rules, scheme framed by the CIDCO and more precisely under the orders passed by this Court in Public Interest Litigation No. 2338/1999. The said judgment of Division Bench of this Court was subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19687/2000. The Special Leave Petition was finally disposed of by judgment and order dated 09.02.2002 and under the directions issued by the Apex Court, the allottees/applicants 6 were permitted to approach this Court for some clarification of the order passed by this Court in the public interest litigation and further orders passed from time to time in that respect. That is how, the petitions like the present one have been filed earlier and pending in this Court seeking clarification, modification or challenge to the orders passed by the CIDCO Authorities. 4. Considering the orders passed by this Court, in the petition cited supra and the judgment and order delivered by the Apex Court, we are not in agreement with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the person who is allotted residential-cum-commercial plot could also be allotted residential plot separately. According to the CIDCO any allottee of residential- cum-commercial plot is entitled to construct or develop the plot commercially as per permission given by the CIDCO to the extent of 15 percent of the plot size and rest of the portion is required 7 to be developed for residential purposes. Factually, petitioner No. 1 had developed the plot commercially and residentially meaning thereby, petitioner No. 1 constructed the hotel and lodging which the CIDCO permitted as residential activity. The whole purpose behind the scheme framed by this Court in the earlier litigation was to benefit individual persons/residents of the township for getting one plot for use of the family, and accordingly, this Court had considered the issue in the facts and circumstances of the case brought before this Court. The bonafides of the parties were tested, the family needs were looked into and thereafter, certain orders were passed by this Court clarifying and issuing directions to CIDCO in this regard. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that as petitioner No. 2 was not earlier allotted plot No. 76/B, N-2, should be considered to be a allottee of the second plot, is 8 also not sustainable and according to learned counsel Shri Bajaj because, it was joint a application. We find substance in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel Shri Bajaj in this regard. 6. The correspondence between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 regarding the issue relating to alleged malafides, allegations against respondent No. 3, the correspondence between respondent No. 3 and the petitioner No. 1 in respect of alleged telephonic conversation have no bearing on the crucial issue which we are to address i. e. whether the petitioner would be entitled for allotment of second plot for residential purposes, when they already got the allotment of residential-cum-commercial plot and developed the same. We do not find any glaring error in the decision of the CIDCO. 7. The petition is dismissed. Interim relief 9 stand vacated. We direct the CIDCO to start process of allotment of plot No. 207/B, N-3, CIDCO, by publishing advertisement and by adopting lottery method afresh. The process of re-allotment shall begin after three weeks from today. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/July 09