1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2466 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2466 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2466 OF 2007 Ashish Gandhi Builders and Developers P.Ltd. .. Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.K.Patil for the petitioner Mr.G.W.Mattos, A.G.P. for the State CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE: 19TH MARCH, 2009 DATE: 19TH MARCH, 2009 DATE: 19TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. On 1.11.2004, Respondent MHADA had published advertisement calling for bidders for sale of 67 plots in Mumbai. The petitioner had applied for one such flat. The tenders came to be opened on 5.1.05. The petitioner participated in the said tender process and deposited the amount of Rs.2,78,000/- The grievance of the petitioner is that thereafter the flat was not allotted to him nor was his earnest money returned to 2 him. 3. Mr.Mattos, the learned counsel for MHADA stated that the entire tender process was challenged in Writ Petition No.1330 of 2005 and Writ Petition (L) No.3364 of 2004 and the court directed that statusquo be maintained with respect to the plots and the statusquo continued till 6.12.05. Hence, no plot could be allotted to anyone including the petitioner nor the E.M.D. could be refunded. It is stated that thereafter the matter was considered and by resolution dated 20.09.08, it was decided that the earnest money deposit paid by the persons who had applied in pursuance to the said advertisement be returned to them and that MHADA would utilise the said plots for constructing houses thereon. As per the said resolution, Earnest Money Deposit paid by the petitioner has been refunded back to him on 17.01.2009 vide Cheque No.791096 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Griha Nirman Bhavan Branch, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing for allotment of plot and he is 3 willing to accept the amount which has been paid by him with interest. This statement that the petitioner is giving up claim in respect of plot and only restricting him claim to E.M.D. amount and interest thereon is made on instruction from Mr.Ashish Gandhi, Managing Director of petitioner company who is present in court. It is stated that the amount which has ben paid by him as E.M.D. has been lying with MHADA from 06.01.05 till 17.01.09 when it was returned to the petitioner by cheque. Hence, he has claimed interest thereon. 5. MHADA took a decision in a resolution to return the said amount only after the petitioner was constrained to file the present Writ Petition. Hence, the claim of the petitioner for refund of the amount with interest is justified. In this view of the matter, E.M.D. be refunded to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. to be calculated from 06.01.05 till 17.01.99. The E.M.D. amount alongwith interest calculated @ 9% p.a. be paid to the petitioner from the date of this order. 6. Mr.Mattos. the learned counsel for MHADA submitted that the amount was not refunded to the 4 petitioner as in Writ Petition No.1330 of 2005 and Writ Petition (L) No.3364 of 2004, the court had granted statusquo in respect of the plots on 1.11.05 and this statusquo continued till 6.12.05 when the petitions came to be withdrawn. Hence, he submitted that respondent MHADA is not liable to pay interest for the said period. In fact, Mr.Mattos submitted that MHADA is not liable to pay any interest at all as there is no such provision. However, it is noticed that the present petitioner was not a party in those petitions. Moreover, the statusquo was only in respect of allotment of plots and not refund of money. MHADA has not refunded the amount within a reasonable time. The amount is lying with MHADA since 6.1.05. It is pertinent to note that the Government itself had stayed allotment of plots on 25.11.2004 and on communication dt.31.1.2005 addressed by the Govt. to MHADA, MHADA had cancelled the advertisement. In such case, the amount of the petitioner ought to have been immediately returned. However, it was not returned. Hence, in our opinion, the petitioner is entitled to interest even for the period from 11.11.05 to 6.12.05. 7. The learned counsel for MHADA requests for stay 5 of the order for 8 weeks. 8. Request for stay is granted for a period of 8 weeks only in respect of payment of interest. E.M.D. amount be returned to the petitioner within 4 weeks from today. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.)