1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 232 OF 2009 Krishnakant Narayan Kudale ..Petitioner versus Pimpri Chinchwad Navnagar Vikas Pradhikaran & Anr. ..Respondents Ms. Manjari Shah with Ms. Jyoti Ghag i/b. M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Associates for Petitioner. Mr. Vijay Patil for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Rajesh P. Behere – Addl.G.P. for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 08, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and learned AGP for respondent No. 2 - State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner submitted application in the proforma for allotment of plot in Peth No. 7 and 10 of Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority on 3rd June 1991 along with the requisite money, which is annexed as Exhibit ‘A’ to the petition. The respondent No.1 vide communication dated 20th November 2 1991 addressed to the petitioner informed their willingness to allot the said plot and asked the petitioner to contact respondent No.1 personally and also asked the petitioner to deposit amount of Rs.30,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner deposited the requisite amount. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was ready and willing to deposit the entire balance amount with the respondent No.1 and was also ready and willing to provide all the necessary information, documents, as required by the respondent No. 1. However, respondent No.1 refused to accept the balance amount even as per the current market value of the land and all of a sudden cancelled the allotment of the plot vide communication dated 24th March 2004. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the respondent No.1 thereafter once again vide communication dated 6th May 2008 asked the petitioner to remain present on 12th May 2008 in the Office of the Chief Executive Officer for hearing and the petitioner was given opportunity to put up his say before the Chief Executive Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner remained present before the Chief Executive Officer on the said date, hearing had taken place, the petitioner offered to pay the current market price of the land as demanded by the respondent No. 1. It is therefore by necessary implication the communication dated 24th March 2004 stands waived and 3 hence the direction be given to the respondent No.1 to accept the balance amount of money and allot the plot in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is ready and willing to furnish necessary information and documents to the respondent No.1. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has contended that it is not disputed that the petitioner submitted the application for allotment of the said plot and the respondent No.1 issued communication dated 20th November 1991. The respondent No.1 however contended that the petitioner vide communication dated 27th June 2003 was specifically directed to furnish following information : i) Printed application in prescribed specimen; ii) Plot of land which was required for the project, project report should be submitted, nature of production, duration,employees staff, demand of electricity, water supply, financial details of the project, supply of raw material, sales etc.; iii) Bank financial capacity certificate of industrialist (turnover certificate); iv) If the company is of individual licence of Shop Act, domicile certificate or school leaving certificate mentioning the place of birth, if the company is of partnership firm then the registered copy of Partnership Deed or receipt from Registration Office; 4 v) If the company is of private nature then copy of constitution about establishment of company, copy of resolution of the Board of Directors, Certificate of Company Registration Office or receipt of Registration Office by attesting the same on behalf of the company authority letter; vi) Passport size photograph, etc., vii) Along with the application zerox copy of Registration Certificate of Establishment or company, and other certificates. The petitioner was informed that the above referred documents and information should be furnished within 20 days along with balance amount failing which it will be presumed that the petitioner was not interested in getting the plot allotted in his name. 5. The counsel for the respondent No.1 further contended that since the petitioner neither furnished the information nor paid the balance amount, the respondent No.1 sent reminder vide communication dated 16th December 2003 by way of notice whereby the petitioner was once again called upon to furnish the above referred information and was also asked to deposit the balance amount within seven days failing which his allotment would be cancelled. It is contended that inspite of the said notice, the petitioner failed to furnish the said information nor deposited the amount and therefore the respondent No.1 had no option but to cancel the allotment 5 vide communication dated 24th March 2004. 6. The counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that so far as the communication dated 6th May 2008 is concerned, since the amount deposited by the petitioner was required to be refunded to the petitioner and therefore the petitioner was called in the Office of the Chief Executive Officer vide said communication for hearing and not for the purpose of either revival of the allotment which was cancelled vide communication dated 24th March 2004 nor for any other purpose. It is however contended that the respondent No.1 did not give any offer to pay the price of the land as per market value, as contended by the petitioner. The contention canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner in this regard are denied. It is submitted that since the petitioner inspite of opportunity given to him to make the payment and furnish the information failed to do so, the respondent No. 1 had no option but to cancel the allotment vide communication dated 24th March 2004 which respondent No. 1 did and therefore the action of the respondent No.1 is just and proper act and is sustainable. 7. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsels. The following facts are not in dispute. The petitioner submitted application for allotment of plot way back in 6 1991 and also deposited some amount. The respondent No. 1 vide communication dated 20th November 1991 has shown willingness to allot the plot in question and also called the petitioner personally to the office of the respondent No. 1 in this regard. Respondent No.1 vide communication dated 27th June 2003 asked the petitioner to furnish information and furnish certain documents, as referred to herein above, within a stipulated period of twenty days along with the balance amount in order to complete the transaction of allotment of plot. In the said communication it is specifically mentioned that if the petitioner fails to comply, it will be presumed that the petitioner was not interested in getting the plot allotted in his name. It is not in dispute that the petitioner neither supplied the requisite information nor deposited the balance amount. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.1 again issued the notice dated 16th December 2003 to the petitioner who was again called upon to submit the requisite information and deposit the balance amount within the period of seven days from the receipt of the said communication. However, the petitioner again did not submit the information nor deposited the requisite balance amount. Since the petitioner utterly failed to comply with the requirement hence the respondent No.1 vide communication dated 24th March 2004 cancelled the allotment of plot, the action taken by the respondent No.1, in our view, appears to be just and proper. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not place before us any document or showed us any terms and conditions of allotment which 7 entitles the petitioner to furnish such information beyond such period which was fixed by the respondent No.1 vide communications dated 27th June 2003 or 16th December 2003. In absence thereof, it is very difficult for us to hold that the time which was fixed by the respondent No.1 for the purpose of furnishing information by the petitioner as well as making the deposit vide communications dated 27th June 2003 and 16th December 2003 can be said to be arbitrary or unjust. 8. So far as the communication dated 6th May 2008 issued by the respondent No.1 is concerned, that by itself, in our opinion, would not amount to waiver nor render the action of the cancellation of allotment taken by the respondent No.1 vide communication dated 24th March 2004 nugatory. The contention canvassed by the learned counsel in this behalf, in our view, suffer from lack of merits. 9. For the reasons stated herein above, the petition is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)