1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 85 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 963 OF 2006 Babanrao S. Dherange & Anr. .... Petitioners. V/s. UTI Infrastructure and Services Ltd. & Ors. .... Respondents. And T. Chandrashekhar & Ors. .... Contemnors. ....... Mr. J.S. Kini i/b. Suresh Dubey for the Petitioner. Mr. P.N. Modi with Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Ms. Najma Shaikh, Mr. Swapnil Joshi i/b. Vigil Juris for the Respondent. ........ CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 22ND JANUARY 2008. P.C. :- In pursuance of bids which were invited by the Administrator of the Specified Undertaking of the Unit Trust of India for the sale of 2 certain residential flats in Building No.17 of the Housing Board Colony at Bandra Reclamation, an offer submitted by the Petitioner was accepted on 23rd March 2005. The Petitioner tendered the entire sale consideration of Rs.6,56,80,000/-. A Writ Petition was filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner which was disposed of on 28th March 2006. The Division Bench noted that the only problem that remained was the completion of necessary formalities. It was the case of MHADA, impleaded as Second Respondent that the First Respondent herein would have to apply in a prescribed format for seeking sanction of MHADA. The Court recorded the statement of Counsel for MHADA that the necessary format would be forwarded to the First Respondent within one week and directed that the First Respondent may apply in the prescribed format within a period of one week thereafter. The Court was assured by MHADA that the decision on the application for the sale of the flats would be taken within eight weeks from the receipt of the application. The Petition was accordingly disposed of. MHADA forwarded the prescribed format to the First Respondent under a letter dated 4th April 2006. The First Respondent in turn addressed a letter dated 7th April 2006 to the 3 Petitioners forwarding the format for completion of particulars. The Petitioners forwarded the forms duly completed to MHADA on 12th April 2006. The First Respondent addressed a reminder to MHADA for taking a necessary decision on 29th September 2006. MHADA eventually granted its No Objection by a communication dated 21st September 2007. The directions issued by the Division Bench to facilitate a final decision by MHADA were thus duly worked out. 2. On 1st August 2007, a letter was addressed on behalf of the Administrator of the Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India to the Petitioner's Advocate recording that since by the aforesaid date, MHADA had not conveyed its decision over the application for the grant of N.O.C., the sale could not be completed. The transaction for the sale of 16 flats was thereupon terminated and the earnest money deposit of Rs.65.68 lakhs was returned together with interest in the amount of Rs.4.28 lakhs. The decision to cancel the sale transaction has independently been challenged in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner bearing Writ Petition 1997 of 2007. That Writ Petition is pending. 4 3. The Contempt proceedings are principally directed against the Third Respondent and during the course of the submissions, it is the role of the Third Respondent which has been called into question. In paragraph 15 of the Contempt Petition, there is an allegation that the Third Respondent was residing in two of the flats which have agreed to be sold and it is alleged that he was making several efforts to coerce the Petitioner to agree upon certain terms which were not acceptable to them due to which there was a stalemate. 4. An affidavit in reply was filed on behalf of the First and the Third Respondents in which it was stated that the decision to cancel the said sale transaction for the properties at Building Nos 16 and 17 was taken by the Board of Advisors of the Specified Undertaking of the Unit Trust of India, in view of the fact that MHADA had not taken its decision until then. On 3rd December 2007, when the Contempt Petition came up for hearing, this Court noted that in paragraph 20 of the rejoinder filed by the Petitioner, certain allegations were leveled against the Third 5 Respondent. Liberty was sought by the Third Respondent to controvert those allegations since they were made for the first time in rejoinder. The allegation in paragraph 20 of the rejoinder was that the Third Respondent had called the Chief Promoter of the Petitioner – Society on 6th June 2005 and since the Chief Promoter was not present in Mumbai, his son had met the Third Respondent. At that meeting, it is alleged that the Third Respondent demanded two flats in which he was residing, failing which, he is alleged to have stated that he would ensure that the transaction would be canceled. The Petitioners have relied upon a letter dated 18th July 2005, addressed by a former Officer of the First Respondent to the Finance Minister. 5. The Third Respondent has filed a detailed affidavit dated 17th December 2007, in which the allegations made in paragraph 20 of the rejoinder have been controverted. In the affidavit it has been stated that upon issuance of the Gazette Notification dated 14th January 2003, in terms of the Unit Trust of India (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2002 all the business, assets liabilities and properties of the Unit Trust of India came to be vested in the Administrator of the Specified 6 Undertaking of the Unit Trust of India. The Administrator decided to put up the premises for sale and transfer and appointed the First Respondent herein to undertake the work of inviting tenders and assist him. On 5th April 2007, a resolution was passed by the Administrator and by the Board of Advisors to terminate the transaction. The Third Respondent has stated that the decision to terminate the transaction was not his decision. The meeting which was held on 5th April 2007 is stated to have been attended by the Administrator and by several Government Officials including the Joint Secretary (Capital Markets), Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India; and the Additional Secretary in the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.. The Third Respondent has stated that neither the First Respondent nor he had made any recommendation or proposal for the resolution and that as a matter of fact, the proposal was put up to the Administrator and the Board of Advisors of the Specified Undertaking by the Executive Director of the Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India. The Third Respondent has further stated that it was only on 24th June 2005 that he assumed charge as CEO of the First Respondent. 7 6. The legality of the decision which has been taken by the Board of Advisors of the Specified Undertaking to terminate the sale transaction does not fall for determination in these Contempt Proceedings. That is a matter of an independent Writ Petition which is pending adjudication before the Court. The only question which survives in this Petition and which has been urged at the hearing is whether the Third Respondent had, as a result of a personal bias ensured a state of affairs in which the transaction of which only formalities remained to be completed when the Division Bench disposed of the Petition on 28th March 2006, was rescinded. On the state of the record as it stands, there is nothing to indicate that the statements contained in the affidavit filed by the Third Respondents are untrue or unfounded. The decision to rescind the sale transaction was not the personal decision of the Third Respondent and the decision taken by the Board of Advisors of the Specified Undertaking. The Third Respondent has, stated that he joined the First Respondent only on 24th June 2005, and on the date of the alleged meeting dated 6th June 2005, the Third Respondent was not connected with the First 8 Respondent. The Third Respondent has disputed the authenticity of the alleged visitor's card upon which reliance has been placed by the Petitioners. The Third Respondent has also stated in his affidavit that as many as 19 letters were addressed to MHADA requesting the authority for the grant of a No Objection Certificate including by him or at his instructions. Thereafter, further letters were also addressed, copies of which have been annexed to the replies, on 29th September 2006 and 25th January 2007. The explanation of the third Respondent on affidavit is not shown to be untrue and there is no reason to disbelieve what is stated therein. No case has been made out for pursuing the contempt proceedings. The Petitioner is really aggrieved by the decision to rescind the sale transaction for which the appropriate remedy has already been adopted. In so far as these proceedings are concerned, they are lacking in merit. The Contempt Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. 7. The Show Cause Notice shall stand discharged. ------