ssp 1 WP 712 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.712 OF 2011 Ulhas Shantaram Ghosalkar .....Petitioner versus City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. ..... Respondents Dr.M.M.Sathe, Senior Advocate i/by Mr.N.N.Bhadrashete, for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Hegde, for respondent No.1. Mr.R.J.Mane, AGP, for respondent No.2. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 19 th JULY, 2011 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that appropriate writ directions, orders may be issued to the respondent CIDCO, directing the respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner’s request for allotment of plot as per the policy prevailing in the year 2003. The petitioner had applied under the category “Newspapers” for allotment of a plot belonging to the CIDCO. Initially, the allotment was made in favour of the petitioner and some other newspapers. Accordingly, the petitioner had deposited `39,00,000/- at the relevant time with the CIDCO. However, the said decision was challenged before this Court by way of Writ Petition (L) No.115 of 2004 and the Division Bench of this Court vide ssp 2 WP 712 of 2011 an order dated 29-04-2004 set aside the said allotment in favour of the petitioner and other respondents. The CIDCO was also directed to refund the amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner. It was directed that the plots in question may be disposed of by the respondent No.1 in accordance with its regulations and policy. It was also observed that if any plot is earmarked for newspaper groups, it will be open to the CIDCO to consider applications of present petitioner and two other respondents afresh in the light of their policy. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 2. On 29-07-2004, the petitioner was informed by the respondent No.1 that he can take the refund of the amount of his Earnest Money Deposit of `39,00,000/-. The petitioner was also asked whether he is interested to get allotment of plot and if so, he may communicate the same by written confirmation to examine the said request. The petitioner however, went on making correspondence by informing the respondent No.1 that he has already approached the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Division Bench of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that One Man Committee was appointed to find out the irregularities in the allotment. It is not in dispute that the one man committee was not ssp 3 WP 712 of 2011 appointed in order to find out whether the petitioner was entitled to get the said plot or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the policy of the CIDCO prevailing in the year 2003, the respondent No.1 may be directed to consider the request of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that in the meanwhile, the CIDCO has amended the original regulations by framing the Navi Mumbai Disposal of Lands (Amendment) Regulations, 2008. Clause 4 of the said regulation, reads as under : - 4. Mannerof disposal of plots – The Corporation shall dispose off plots by inviting public tenders or by public auction, except for the following categories : - (i) to the Central Government/State Government and their Undertakings, to the Local Bodies and to any Government Autonomous Body Constituted under any Act for any public purpose, by considering individual applications at specified rate of lease premium. (ii) to the Co-operative Housing Societies for constructing flats for the residence of its own members, at a specified rate of lease premium and subject to the Regulations framed for lease of land to the Co-operative Housing Society. (iii) to registered Public Charitable Trust – (a) for educational, social, cultural, Medical Charitable and sports activities, as per the guidelines approved by the Government from time to time, (b) for the construction of any temple, church, synagogue, mosque or for any other religious purpose, with the previous approval of the Government, at a specified rate of lease premium by considering individual applications. (iv) to the reputed national/international institutions, R and D establishments, Foreign Government, Consulates, by considering individual applications at specified rate of lease premium : ssp 4 WP 712 of 2011 Provided that the Managing Director may allot odd- shaped land to the adjoining Licensee/Lessee, which otherwise cannot be disposed off for the reason of non- availability of access or is not developable due to its odd- shape or other reasons, for the same use and with the same FSI the adjoining plot has, at the rate suggested in the Land Pricing and Land Disposal Policy prevailing at the time of allotment of odd-shaped land or at the rate at which the original plot is allotted, whichever is higher. Provided further that, on application the Managing Director may allot plots on leave and licence upto a period of Eleven Years for stone/stand quarries, brick kilns, maintenance of garden, playgrounds, temporary labour camps, or any such temporary activities which shall not create permanent encumbrance on the plots. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that in view of the said Regulation, which are in force today, no preference can be given to Newspaper category and the earlier provision regarding entertaining individual application, no longer holds the field. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the CIDCO has sent a proposal to the State Government for allowing to amend Regulation 4 for giving the preference to Newspapers and the respondent No.1 is awaiting the approval of the State Government in this behalf. He submitted that as on today, as per the Regulations of 2008, petitioner cannot be given any preference as it was not included in the said regulation. 6. In our view, the CIDCO is required to decide the request of the petitioner for allotment of a plot as per the existing regulations. Of ssp 5 WP 712 of 2011 course, no preference is given to Newspapers and individual applications cannot be considered. Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner asking the CIDCO to consider his case in view of the prevailing policy of 2003, cannot be accepted, as the CIDCO as per the new policy, has amended its regulations. Since the CIDCO has already sent a proposal to the State Government for amending the said Regulations of 2008 and if the State Government accord its approval, then at that stage, the petitioner may apply in response to the intimation sent to CIDCO to individual newspapers. On the basis of the policy decision taken by the CIDCO in this behalf, the petitioners will also be entitled to apply for allotment of the land and at that stage, if the petitioner applies on the basis of the said decision, the claim of the petitioner shall be taken into consideration by the CIDCO. 7. Respondent No.1 is directed to refund the amount of `39,00,000/- with accrued interest @ 9% p.a., to the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner may prefer appropriate application for refund of the amount, if so desired within a period of four weeks from today. 8. In view of what is stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )