1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2232 OF 2002 M/s. Parijat Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ..... Petitioner. V/s The Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondents. ----- Mr. P.U. Dhakephalkar i/b Mr. Madhav Jamdar for the Petitioner. Mr. Y.R. Mishra with Mr. R.A. Dube for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. K.J. Presswala i/b Mulla & Mulla & CBC for Respondent No.5. ----- CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 29th January, 2008. P.C.: 1. By this Petition, the Petitioner basically challenges the communication dated 12/02/2001 from the Defence Estates Officer, Pune Cantonment Board, informing the Petitioner that the Petitioner has to submit fresh conversion proposal for conversion of old grant terms lease hold rights into free hold rights. An application was made by the predecessor in title of the petitioner for permission for conversion of old grant terms lease hold rights into free hold rights. That application, it appears, was approved by the Pune Cantonment Board and the matter was forwarded to the Central Government for its approval. From the communication dated 29th October, 1985 it is clear that, according to the Central Government, there was some 2 dispute about the ownership of the property pending in Court and, therefore, the Central Government decided to keep that proposal in abeyance. It appears that, thereafter, when the dispute regarding the ownership was resolved, a letter was addressed by the Cantonment Board to the Central Government. A letter, it appears, was also addressed by the Petitioner. In response to that, communication dated 12/02/2001 has been sent which reads as under:- “ 2. In this connection it is to inform you that please submit a fresh conversion proposal through CEO Pune in respect of subject house to enable this office to take up the case with the Government.” 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has been asked by this communication to submit a fresh proposal without giving reasons as to why the Petitioner is required to submit a fresh proposal and also without giving any reason as to why his old proposal is not being considered. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the old proposal was submitted by the predecessor in title of the Petitioner, which is also recommended by the Cantonment Board to the Central Government and it is for the Central Government to consider that proposal. Now, that the reason for which that proposal was kept in abeyance does not exist, it is for the Central Government to make appropriate order on that proposal. Unless and until the old proposal is rejected for valid reason, there is no occasion for asking the Petitioner to submit a fresh proposal. 3 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as also the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 5. 4. It is clear from the record that the proposal was submitted for conversion of old grant terms lease hold rights into free hold rights by the predecessor in title of the Petitioner. That proposal was approved by the Pune Cantonment Board and it was forwarded to the Central Government. The Central Government decided to keep that proposal in abeyance because, according to the Central Government, there was some dispute pending. Therefore, the moment the Petitioner and the Cantonment Board informs the Central Government that the reason for which the proposal was kept in abeyance ceases to exist, it was for the Central Government to consider that proposal and decide whether it wants to approve that proposal or to reject it. Obviously, Central Government will have to give reasons why it is making the order. From the communication, it is apparent that the Central Government has not rejected the proposal submitted by the petitioner. It has also not given any reason as to why it is not considering that proposal and, therefore, in our opinion, there was no justification for the Central Government to direct the Petitioner to submit a fresh proposal. In our opinion, therefore, the communication dated 12/02/2001 is liable to be set aside. 5. In our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- 4 O R D E R (i) The communication dated 12/02/2001 is set aside. (ii) The respondent No.1 shall consider the proposal submitted by the predecessor in title of the Petitioner, which has been submitted to it through the Pune Cantonment Board for approval alongwith the letter dated 26/07/1985. (iii) In case, the respondent No.1 decides to reject the proposal, it shall assign the reasons for doing so. (iv) The decision shall be taken by the respondent No.1 as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of 12 weeks from today. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) 5 (V.M. KANADE, J.)