Powari Panchsheel Co-Op.Hng.Sty.. vs Maharashtra Housing Area Development ...

2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal,   it   is   necessary   to   set   out   the   facts   in   detail hereinbelow.

5. On   26.6.1995,   the   Board   issued   an advertisement for sale of 1924 flats (1673 non­deluxe and 251 deluxe) at the rate of Rs.2,995/­ per square feet   at   Powai   (Mumbai)­called   (Powai   Project).       To execute   and   supervise   this   project,   the   Board appointed   M/s.   Kamath   Constructions   &   Estate Consultants   (as   their   sole   selling/commission   agent) [for   short   hereinafter   called   "M/s   Kamath Constructions")].

6. For some reasons, only 123 flats could be sold, out of 1924, by the Board. The Board, therefore, from 1995 to 1999 issued seven advertisements for sale of remaining flats, pursuant to which 1597 flats (which included   sale   of   123 flats) could be sold leaving  still 327   flats   unsold.   The   Board,   therefore,   decided   to reduce   the   price   from   Rs.2995/­   per   sq.   feet   to Rs.2200/­ per sq. feet for sale of remaining 327 flats so as to enable it to sell the said unsold flats. 3

7. It   is,   with   these   background   facts,   the   Board issued 8th advertisement in local newspapers for sale of remaining unsold flats (which included 251 deluxe flats with a area of 893 sq. feet in Powai Project) and also   some   other   flats   situated   in   other   location   in Mumbai at the  rate of Rs.2200/­ per sq. feet on the terms   and   conditions   set   out   in   the advertisement/booklet.     The   Board,   however,   again claimed that they did not receive good response.

8. On   10.02.2003,   11.02.2003   and   12.02.2003, three   Co­operative   Societies   namely   (1)   Shree   Amey Co­operative Housing Society (2) Shri Guru Krupa Co­ operative Housing Society and (3) Shree Sai Shraddha Co­operative Housing Society (respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 in Writ Petition No. 2017 of 2003 respectively before the   High   Court)   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “three societies”) made their offers in writing for allotment of 500 flats in Powai Project on the terms offered by each of them in their respective offers.

9. So far as appellant No.1 herein is concerned, it is also   a   co­operative   housing   society   and   they   also applied on 03.03.2003 (Annexure P­6) to M/s Kamath Constructions   and   offered   to   purchase   110   flats   of Powai   Project   for   Rs.17   crores.     Appellant   No.1   also simultaneously   applied   to   the   Board   on   03.03.2003 requesting   them   to   supply   all   necessary   details regarding the Powai Project to enable them to book the said flats.

10. On the same day, M/s. Kamath Construction, on their part, forwarded the offer of appellant No.1 to the Board   along   with   three   other   offers,   which   they received from Andhra Bank, Canara Bank and Bank of Baroda.

12. The   Resolution   No.192   which   dealt   with   this matter   reveals   that   the   Board   considered   only   the offers   made   by   the   three   societies   and   eventually accepted   their   offers   with   some   modifications.     The Board, however, did not consider the offer of appellant No.1   at   all.       The   Resolution   No.192   accepting   the offers of the three societies reads as under:­  “                       Annexure P­7 O. No.Dir.

As   the   implementation   of   this Resolution   has   to   be   implemented   without waiting   for   its   confirmation,   the   Resolution of   the   Authority   be   kindly   made   available with necessary amendments in the enclosed draft resolution. Hence this request.  Sd/­ Director, Marketing/M.B. Sd/­ Joint Chief Officer/M.B. 7 Sd/­ Chief Officer/M.B. As   there   is   inconsistency   with   each   other shown in “A” the Resolution is submitted for correcting the same.

16. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition finding no fault in the Board's decision taken in the 12 meetings on 10/14.05.2003, which gave rise to filing of this appeal  by   way   of   special  leave to  appeal  in  this Court  by unsuccessful writ petitioners.

19. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the   appeal,   set   aside   the   impugned   order,   allow   the appellants’   writ   petition,   out   of   which   this   appeal   arises, 13 and issue writ of certiorari to quash the decision of meetings dated 10/14.5.2003 and further issue a writ of mandamus against   the   respondents­Board   and   the   three   societies   to ensure its compliance as directed hereinbelow in detail.

23. Keeping   in   view   the   aforementioned   principle   of   law, when   we   examine   the   facts   of   this   case,   we   are   of   the 15 considered   opinion   that   the   Board   was   not   justified   in considering   only   the   offers   made   by   the   three   societies without considering appellant No.1’s offer dated 03.03.2003 on its merit.

26.  Fourthly, the very fact that M/s Kamath Constructions entertained   appellant   No.1’s   offer   on   03.03.2003   and forwarded it to the Board was indicative of the fact that offer to purchase the flats of Powai Project could be made by any party either to the Board or to M/s. Kamath Constructions and had to be considered as being a valid offer made to the Board only.

27. Fifthly,   reading   of   appellant   No.1’s   letter   dated 03.03.2003   to   M/s.   Kamath   Constructions   would   clearly indicate that it was essentially an offer made by appellant No.1 to the Board for purchase of 110 flats for Rs.17 crores. In other words, it could not be treated as letter for soliciting some   information   from   the   Board   as   contended   by   the Board for its consideration.

30. In our view, appellant No.1 had a legitimate right and so  the   expectation  that it would get equal treatment from the Board like the other three societies because all four were similarly situated while considering the issue of sale of flats of Powai Project.  Indeed, there was no valid reason for the Board to exclude appellant No.1’s case/offer from the zone of consideration.

31. The reason given by the Board for non­consideration of appellant   No.1’s   case/offer   namely   that   appellant   No.1’s letter dated 03.03.2003 was not an offer and, therefore, it was not considered, had no basis for three reasons.

33. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the decision to sale/dispose of the flats 19 of Powai Project taken by the Board in its meetings held on 10/14.05.2003   (Resolution   No.192)   is   vitiated   as   being unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of principles enshrined in   Article   14   of   the   Constitution  of   India.  It  is  not   legally sustainable and has to be, therefore, set aside.

34. Since we have set aside the impugned Resolution on legal grounds, we need not go into the challenge made by the appellants against the officials on the ground of  mala fides.  It is not necessary.

35. The   appeal   thus   succeeds   and   is   allowed.   Impugned order is set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellants out of which this appeal arises is allowed.

October 12, 2018  21