1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9345 OF 2007 Col.Anwar Umar .. Petitioner Vs. The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents AND CIVIL APPLICATION ST.NO.29929 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9345 OF 2007 The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. .. Applicant Vs. 1. Col.Anwar Umar and Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9542 OF 2007 Balkrishna Bandu Adsul & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Pramod Bajpai with Mr.T.V.Ganesh i/b M/s.Ganesh and Co. for the petitioners 2 Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, Associate Advocate General with Mr.K.K.Tated and Mr.C.M.Lokesh for the respondent nos.1 Mr.P.I.Khemani, A.G.P. for the respondent nos.2 CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL & & & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED : 9TH JANUARY, 2008 DATED : 9TH JANUARY, 2008 DATED : 9TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C.: 1. Col.Anwar Umar has filed Writ Petition No.9345 of 2007 followed by 74 set of persons who have filed Writ Petition No.9542 of 2007 and it is stated across the bar that another set of 27 persons have also filed the petition on the same subject which is registered as Stamp No.230 of 2008 claiming identical reliefs. For the present as these two writ petitions are before us, we have taken up these two petitions for the purpose of admission and heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are entitled to allotment of tenements / apartments in Phase II, Part I and Part II of the scheme 3 floated by CIDCO known as Seawoods Estate, Phase II at Nerul. According to the petitioners, the scheme was to provide tenements / apartments to all eligible applicants for which the respondents invited demand registration application form and accordingly, the petitioners alongwith others submitted their application alongwith a deposit of Rs.5,000/- each. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that 2 bedroom hall kitchen, 3 bedroom hall kitchen and 4 bedroom hall kitchen apartments were offered and out of the original applicants, 440 persons were accommodated by allotment of tenement on first cum first serve basis as per the scheme in Seawoods Estate, Phase II, Part I. It is contended by the applicants that instead of considering their case for allotment of tenements in the proposed Part II which consist of seven towers of Stilt + 18 structures, i.e. 436 apartments, the respondents have proceeded by floating another scheme ignoring the claim of the applicants, and therefore, they are required to approach this court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction and seek a writ of this 4 court to quash and set aside the decision of the respondent nos.1 of not allotting the tenements / apartments to the applicants after allotting the tenements / allotments to 440 applicants and their decision to notify the new scheme in November 2007 known as Book Building Scheme to be quashed and set aside and the respondent no.1 be directed to allot to the petitioners tenements under the scheme of 2002 or any other similar scheme in the same area. 4. The respondents in response to the notice appeared in the matter and submitted that the applicants do not have any legal right to claim allotment of tenements merely because they have responded to the earlier advertisement inviting applications under the scheme which was for the purpose of assessing the demand. The scheme itself was notified as demand registration scheme. It is submitted that in case the petitioners are interested in participating in the present scheme, they are free to do so as in so far as earlier scheme is concerned, Para 9 of the Demand Registration Application form clearly provided that this application is only for Demand Registration 5 and does not promise a house in ’Seawoods Estate’ if the Scheme is not taken up due to unavoidable circumstances or if no apartment is allotted due to any reason whatsoever then the entire amount of Registration charges shall be refunded to the applicant without interest. It is further submitted that in phase II part-I after the scheme was completed, the applicants who had registered their application under demand registration scheme in the demand registration application form have been accommodated on first cum first serve basis and there is no legal right vested in the petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners cannot be deprived of the tenements / apartments as per the demand registration scheme as it amounts to denial of a right created in their favour by the respondents by promising them to allot tenements / apartments and therefore, their case is squarely covered by the ’doctrine of promissory estoppel’. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited three decisions of the Honourable Supreme 6 Court of India in the cases of (i) The Union of The Union of The Union of India and others v. M/s.Anglo Afghas Agencies etc. India and others v. M/s.Anglo Afghas Agencies etc. India and others v. M/s.Anglo Afghas Agencies etc. reported in AIR 1968 SC 718 (ii) M/s.Motilal reported in AIR 1968 SC 718 (ii) M/s.Motilal reported in AIR 1968 SC 718 (ii) M/s.Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.Ltd. v. The State of Padampat Sugar Mills Co.Ltd. v. The State of Padampat Sugar Mills Co.Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR 1979 SC Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR 1979 SC Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR 1979 SC 621 (ii) M/s.Jit Ram Shiv Kumar and others v. The 621 (ii) M/s.Jit Ram Shiv Kumar and others v. The 621 (ii) M/s.Jit Ram Shiv Kumar and others v. The State of Haryana and anothers reported in AIR 1980 State of Haryana and anothers reported in AIR 1980 State of Haryana and anothers reported in AIR 1980 SC 1285 SC 1285 SC 1285 and, therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners deserve to be allotted the tenements / apartments in the new scheme floated by the respondents. It has been specifically submitted that the respondents are trying to deviate from their earlier offer by stating that the earlier demand registration application form for Seawoods Estate Phase II at Nerul was restricted to the project taken up in phase II part I whereas the brochure clearly specifies that Seawoods Estate Phase II consists of two parts i.e. Part I consists of seven towers of Stilt + 18 structures, i.e. 440 apartments and Proposed Part II consists of seven towers of Stilt + 18 structures, i.e. 436 apartments. and, therefore, the petitioners are eligible to be considered in the proposed part II scheme which has been now advertised by them on the 7 same terms and conditions as it was earlier offered and for which the petitioners got themselves registered, which is not disputed, as their names figures in the list of eligible applicants which is annexed to the petition. 7. On the other hand, it is contended that the earlier advertisement was only in respect of assessing the demand for tenements / apartments in the area and i.e. why the scheme itself was known as demand registration for phase II (proposed) and in the communication sent to the applicants, it was clearly mentioned that the consent of the applicant to the proposed price structure is not a concluded agreement giving them enforceable right to buy an apartment and that the right to finalise the scheme and or revoke the scheme without assigning any reasons, rests with CIDCO and that the Corporation would be free to take its own decision in this regard towards finalisation of the scheme at the finally determined price structure which would be communicated to them in due course of time. It is also submitted that it was made clear that registration does not offer any right on the 8 applicants. Therefore, their petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. This court, at the first instance passed an ad interim order in order to protect the interest if any, of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.9345 of 2007. It is a matter of grave concern that Shri Pramod Bajpai, one of the advocates appearing for the petitioners who took liberty to brief the press and misinterpreted the ad interim orders passed by this court which is also evident from the communication of the ad interim order by Mr.Pramod Bajpai on 18.12.2007 addressed to the officials of the respondents. Mr.Bajpai, the learned counsel who argued the petition at the stage of admission has tendered his unconditional apology in the matter. We would have accepted the same without demur but for the reason that in the 2nd petition filed by the petitioners i.e. 9542 of 2007, it has been specifically reiterated in para 12 of the petition what has been the ad interim order passed by this court, which is admittedly not correct. 9. We may record at this stage itself that 9 this court strongly deprecates such sharp practices on the part of the learned counsel and one does not know whether it was to mislead his client or the public at large as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has taken strong exception to the same by bringing it to the notice of the court that by briefing the press in respect of an ad interim order in a distorted form, has adversely effected the response to the scheme where the respondents CIDCO has invested about 300 crores. As it is for the first time that this court has come across such conduct on the part of Mr.Bajpai, we feel that it would be sufficient to reprimand him so that in future he should be cautious while interpreting the order of this court, as it may cause certain misgivings which will not be in the interest of the litigants at large and the petitioners in particular. 10. In so far as the merits of the petitions are concerned for the purpose of admission, we are clearly of the view that the applications made by the petitioners to respondent CIDCO were only in the form of an offer i.e. their willingness to 10 participate in the scheme and in no manner it can be considered to be a promise leading to an agreement which can be considered to be a concluded contract which can be enforced as the very basis on which the petition is filed and hence, this court will not be able to issue any writ in the nature of directing the respondents to perform their part of the contract as sought for by the petitioners. 11. It has been brought to our notice that as soon as 440 persons which responded to the first scheme floated by the respondents were allotted tenements / apartments on first cum first serve basis, an offer was made to all other persons who have registered their demand with the respondents to take back their deposits which they have not collected. We, therefore, do not find that they have got any claim for allotment of apartments / tenements in the new scheme floated by CIDCO. 12. This court in the midst of hearing even gave an option to the petitioners to seek alternate remedy by approaching the Civil Court for specific performance of the contract, if according to them 11 there was a valid and subsisting contract rather than invoking an extraordinary jurisdiction of this court wherein the learned counsel for the petitioners after seeking instructions from some of the petitioners who are present in court submitted that the petitioners need not be relegated to Civil Suit and this court may take a decision in the matter. 13. In view of the fact that we did not want the petitioners to be kept in hope, it was made clear that we will decide the issue at the stage of admission itself and on the basis of documents placed before this court, this court is of the view there is no promise or agreement between the parties which can be considered as a concluded contract. The petitioners have no right which can be enforced through this court in its writ Jurisdiction and, therefore, the principle of doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply to the facts of the case. Therefore, both the petitions stand dismissed and the ad interim order stands vacated. In view thereof, Civil Application St. No.29929 of 2007 does not survive and the same 12 is dismissed as infructuous. ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J ) ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J ) ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J )