Disposed

Sanjaykumar Surve v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Feb 2006PIL/176/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants an interim injunction restraining allottees from creating third-party rights or carrying further construction until the appropriate authority decides on cancellation notices within 8 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Injunction restraining respondents from creating third party rights or proceeding with further construction on the concerned plots till the determination of the notices.

Sanjaykumar Surve Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION (P.I.L.) NO. 176 OF 2004.

¶4

Sanjaykumar Damodar Surve. ... Petitioner Versus. State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents

¶5

... Respondents

¶6

Shri Harvinder Toor i/by Shri Kishor Shriyaya for the Petitioner.

¶7

Shri Ravi Kadam, Advocate General, for Respondents Nos.1 and 6.

¶8

Shri G.S.Hegde with Shri C.M.Lokesh for Respondent No.2.

¶9

Shri Tripathi for Respondent No.3.

¶10

Shri Lentin i/by Shri Akhilesh S.Dubey for Respondents Nos.4, 7 and 8.

¶11

CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE, & ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 22nd FEBRUARY, 2006.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

Heard Shri Toor in support of this petition.

¶15

Shri Kadam, Advocate General appears for the 1st Respondent. Shri Hegde appears for Respondent No.2.

¶16

Shri Tiwari appears for Respondent No.3. Shri Lentin

¶17

appears for Respondents Nos.4, 7 and 8.

¶18

This petition is filed challenging allotment of

¶19

Plot	No.20,	Sector	60,	Nerul,	N	avi Mu	mbai,	to	Resp	ondent
No.4	which	is	subse	quently	now	passed	on	to	Resp	ondents
Nos.7	and	8.	The	original	plot	No.20	is	now	split	into
two	parts	and	numbe	red as	Plot	Nos.20	and	21.		The
grievance	of	the		Petitioner	is	that	there	has		been

¶20

: 2 :

¶21

underpricing when these plots were allotted, apart from

¶22

various other irregularities.

¶23

3.		What has happ	ened is that aft	er filing of the
petition,	the	2nd	Respondent	has accept	ed the	report
made	by	the State	Governm	ent under	the Additional	Chief
Secretary	Shri	Shankara	n.	The 2nd	Respondent	has
already	gi	ven notic	es for	cancellation	of the	allotment
as	directed	by the	1st Resp	ondent. In	view of	these
notices	to	Respondents	Nos.3	and 4,	Shri Toor	appearing
for t	he Petit	ioner sub	mits that	he is	satisfied with	the
course	of acti	on taken	by Resp	ondents Nos.1	and 2.	Shri
Hegde,	how	ever, states	that	Respondent	No.2 desires	to
give	fresh	notices	giving	further	particulars	if
required	for	the	same purpo	se. We	direct that	the
notices	be	given to	Respo	ndents Nos.7	and 8	also
inasmuch	as	they are	the	parties wh	o are now	in
possession	of	the co	ncerned pl	ots of land	. Shri	Hegde
states	that	the noti	ces will	be issued	within two	weeks
from	today.	Shri	Lentin	appearing	for Re	spondents
Nos.4,	7	and 8	states tha	t reply will	be filed	within
one	week	thereafter.	He	states that	his clients	are
anxious	that	the	decision	be taken	at the	earliest.
According	to	him,	there was	no underpr	icing when	the
plots	were	allotted	and the	re is no	need for	any
revision	or	cancellation.	In	any case	the Re	spondents
concerned	may	file thei	r reply	to CIDCO	on receivin	g the
notice.	We	direct	the Resp	ondent No.2	to decide	notices

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

within	8 weeks	from	the	receipt	of	the	replies	from	the
parties	concerned.		This	will	be	so	because	appro	priate
hearing	after insp	ection	etc.	will	ha	ve	to be	given	to

¶26

the parties concerned. Shri Toor is satisfied with this

¶27

order and does not press for the petition any further.

¶28

During the course of these proceedings, a

¶29

statement	m	ade	by Shri Lentin was recor	ded, nam	ely	that
Respondent		No.4	will not create any third	party		rights
nor an	y	further	construction will be carried	on.		Shri
Lentin wa	nts	to	be relieved of this	statement.		We
relieve	him	of	this statement. Respondents	Nos.7	and	8
have	filed	an	affidavit stating that the	y are	agr	eeable
to pay	p	rice	difference in the event the	allotment		was
to be	reg	ularised.	We are however told	that it	will	be
so only		in th	e event of regularisation and	they	want	to
be reli	eved	of	any restriction in the mea	nwhile.	It	is
not po	ssible	to	accept their submission.	We	th	erefore
grant	inju	nction	of this Court restraining		Respo	ndents
Nos.3, 4	,	7 an	d 8 from creating any thir	d party		rights
or from	pr	oceedings	with any further cons	truction	on	the
concerned		plots	till the determination of	the	n	otices.
It will	be	for	the appropriate authority	to cons	ider	all
the aspe	cts.	It	will also be for them to	examine	as	to
whether	the		allotment should be	reglarised		on
appropriate		revision	in the price which	was	i	nitially

¶30

arrived at which will be after considering various

¶31

factors including Shankaran Committee’s report.

¶32

: 4 :

¶33

It will be open to Respondents Nos.3, 4, 7 and 8

¶34

to	offer	appropriate	revision		in	p	rice while	repl	ying to
the	notices	which	they	may		examin	e and	offer	without
prejudice		to their	princ	ipal		contenti	on that	the	price
fixed	earlier	was	correct.	I	n	the	event of	any	such
offer	being	made, it	will	be		open	for the	CIDCO	and the

¶35

Government to consider whether the allotment should be

¶36

regularised on payment of such enhanced price.

¶37

6. Petition stands disposed of.

¶38

(H.L.Gokhale, J.)

¶39

(Abhay S.Oka, J.)

Sanjaykumar Surve v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjaykumar Surve v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

shri r.r. tripathi Vs the union of india through ministry of personnel public grievances and pension

Advay Prashant Hiray Vs the Malegaon Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Balbhim Ramdas Misal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rakesh Krushnaji Patil and Anr. Vs the Malegaon Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Bhagwanbhai Mayaram Devariya Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Raman Radhakrishnan Iyer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pushphraj Deshmukh (President) and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Mansing Chimansing Salunke and Ors. Vs Malegaon Agriculture Produce Market Committee and Ors.

Jaywant Balwant Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Shivdas Shakar Kale and Anr. Vs M/S. Reliance Energy Ltd. and 2 Ors.

The Barashiv Hanuman Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs Apex Urban Co-Operative Bank of Maharashtra and Goa Ltd. and Ors.

Trig Detectives Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Navaneet Prakashan Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dr. (Mrs.) Suhasini S. Dikshit Vs the Maharashtra Hsg. and Area Development Authority