Disposed¶9

Dr. Keshav Dada Kale v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited. and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2025WP/1877/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CIDCO cancellation of hospital plot allotment to highest bidder; e-tender Taloja Sector 21 Navi Mumbai; legitimate expectation of successful bidder; no legally enforceable right to allotment; judicial review limits — not an appellate court over government decisions; right to refuse tender tested on Article 14; refusal neither arbitrary nor irrational; no interference under Article 226; EMD Rs.16,84,373 refunded; liberty to apply for another plot; relies on Tata Cellular (1994) 6 SCC 651 and State of Jharkhand v. CWI-Soma Consortium (2016) 14 SCC 172; Bombay High Court writ petition disposed February 2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file an application for allotment of another plot in accordance with the extant regulations of CIDCO; no other relief granted. ¶9

Dr. Keshav Dada Kale vs City and Industrial… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to file an application for allotment of another plot in accordance with the extant regulations of CIDCO; no other relief granted.

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the refusal by CIDCO to allot Plot No. 3, Sector 21, Taloja Phase-II, Navi Mumbai to the petitioner (the highest bidder in the auction) was justified, and whether it was arbitrary or irrational so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

While exercising judicial review, this Court does not sit as an appellate court over the decision taken by the Government but merely reviews the manner in which the decision is taken; the right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is available to the Government or its instrumentality, subject to the action being tested on the touchstone of Article 14.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner has no legally enforceable right to insist that the plot in question be allotted to him; however, the respondents' action in refusing allotment must be tested on the criteria laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶7

Key takeaways

The respondents refused to allot the plot in question on a justifiable ground (adjoining Plots 4 and 5 reserved for school and school playground, with Plot No. 3 inadvertently carved out for hospital use), and no fault can be found with that action.ratio¶8
The action of refusal to allot the plot can neither be termed arbitrary nor irrational warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶8
The petitioner shall be at liberty to file an application for allotment of another plot in accordance with the extant regulations of CIDCO, and the writ petition is disposed of with this liberty.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Alok Aradhe, CJ, with Bharati Dangre, J; order per Chief Justice) disposed of Writ Petition No. 1877 of 2024. Dr. Keshav Dada Kale, a cardiologist, was the highest bidder in CIDCO's e-tender (auction held 14.10.2022) for Plot No. 3, Sector 21, Taloja Phase-II, Navi Mumbai (554.07 sq.m.), having bid at Rs.54,333/- per sq.m. and deposited EMD of Rs.16,84,373/-. By order dated 15.03.2023 CIDCO cancelled the allotment on administrative grounds: adjoining Plots 4 and 5 stood reserved and allotted for school and school playground, and Plot No. 3 had been inadvertently carved out for hospital use; the EMD was refunded on 21.04.2023. Holding that the highest bidder has no legally enforceable right to insist on allotment, and testing the refusal against Article 14, the Court found the refusal justifiable, neither arbitrary nor irrational, and declined interference under Article 226, granting the petitioner liberty to apply afresh for another plot per CIDCO's extant regulations. Relied on Tata Cellular vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 and State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. CWI-Soma Consortium (2016) 14 SCC 172.

¶1

5-WP.1877.2024

¶2

Jvs.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1877 OF 2024

¶5

Dr. Keshav Dada Kale } Petitioner Versus

¶6

City and Industrial Development } Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. } & Ors. } Respondents

¶7

Mr. Rajaram V. Bansode for petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni with Mr. Akshay R. Kulkarni for respondents 1 to 3 (CIDCO).

¶9

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & BHARATI DANGRE, J.

¶10

DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2025

¶11

ORDER: (Per Chief Justice)

¶12

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the action of the respondents in not allotting Plot No. 3, situated in Sector 21, Taloja, Phase-II, Navi Mumbai to the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the plot in question”).

¶13

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is doctor by profession and is a cardiologist. The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (CIDCO) floated an e-tender in the local newspapers as well as on its website for allotment of hospital plot on lease at various nodes of Navi Mumbai. The petitioner, on 12^th May 2022, submitted bid in respect of the Plot in question having area of 554.07 square meter at the rate of

¶14

¶15

5-WP.1877.2024

¶16

Rs.54,333/- per square meter. The petitioner also deposited the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs.16,84,373/- on the same day. In an auction held on 14^th October 2022, the petitioner was declared to be the highest bidder. However, by the impugned order dated 15^th March 2023, the petitioner was informed that on account of administrative reasons, the CIDCO has decided to cancel the allotment of plot in favour of the petitioner. Hence this petition.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the highest bidder in the auction and therefore had a legitimate expectation that his bid would be accepted and the plot in question shall be allotted to him for construction of hospital. However, the petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate expectation.

¶18

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents (CIDCO) has invited the attention of this Court to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the reply affidavit and has pointed out that adjoining plot nos. 4 and 5 were reserved for school and school playground, however, the Planning Department of CIDCO inadvertently carved out Plot No.3 for hospital use. However, immediately after learning about the aforesaid fact, CIDCO decided to cancel the bid of the petitioner.

¶19

5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶20

6. It is well settled principle that this Court, while exercising power of judicial review, does not sit as an appellate court over the decision taken by the Government and merely reviews the manner in which the decision is taken. In Tata Cellular vs.

¶21

¶22

5-WP.1877.2024

¶23

Union of India¹ , it has been held that there are inherent limitations in exercise of power of judicial review. It has been further held that right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government or an instrumentality of Government, but the action of the Government in doing so should be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Similar view has been taken in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. CWI-Soma Consortium² .

¶24

7. In the instant case, the petitioner has no legally enforceable right to insist that the plot should be allotted to him. However, action of the respondents in refusing to allot the plot in question to the petitioner has to be tested on the touchstone of the criteria laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the affidavit in reply, the respondents have taken the following stand:

¶25

“8. I say that the Planning Department of CIDCO vide its office note dated 16.02.2023 informed to Social Services Department that Plot No. 4 & 5 were carved out for School and School Playground and same was allotted to M/s. Walva Taluka Education Society under scheme no. CSSO/03/SCH/JR.C/TYPE-III/2014-15. I say that inadvertently, from Planning department of CIDCO said layout was revised and Plot no.3 was carved out for the Hospital use. On realizing the said mistake, with the approval of Competent Authority, Plot no.3 Section 21, Taloja i.e. said plot was cancelled from the scheme no.SS/HOSP/06/2021-22 as the said land was allotted by the Corporation as Plot no.4 & 5 for the purpose of School & School Playground respectively to M/s. Walva Taluka Education Society in the year 2016. The note of the Planning department dtd. 16.02.2023 regarding the above issue is annexed and marked as Exhibit- `R1’.

¶26

1 (1994) 6 SCC 651

¶27

2 (2016) 14 SCC 172

¶28

¶29

5-WP.1877.2024

¶30

9. Accordingly, CIDCO issued letter dated 15.03.2023 informing Petitioner about the cancellation of the said plot from the said scheme. The Earnest Money Deposit amount is also refunded to the Petitioner immediately on 21.04.2023. Here to annexed and marked as Exhibit-`R2’ is the copy of letter dated 15.03.2023.””

¶31

8. In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the respondents, on justifiable ground, have refused to allot the plot in question to the petitioner. No fault can be found with the action of the respondents in refusing to allot the plot in question to the petitioner. The petitioner has also not filed any rejoinder affidavit. The action of refusal to allot the plot in question can neither be termed as arbitrary nor irrational warranting interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, needless to state that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an application for allotment of another plot in accordance with the extant regulations of CIDCO.

¶32

Digitally signed by JAYANT JAYANTVISHWANATH VISHWANATHSALUNKE SALUNKE Date: 2025.02.10 14:23:47 +0530

¶33

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶34

(BHARATI DANGRE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶35

Dr. Keshav Dada Kale v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Keshav Dada Kale v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation vs Union of India

Al Kabeer Exports Private Limited vs Avana Global Fzco

T.S Natrajan vs State of Maharashtra

Malad Keshav Mansion Co-Operative Housing Society Limited vs the State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader

Rubi Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs S S Enterprises

Friends Engineering Corporation vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation