IMPORTANT POINTS
Recipients of largesse cannot be selected in a manner and on standards which are arbitrary, discriminative and capricious.
Everybody has a legitimate right and expectation to be considered equally with other similarly situated contenders.
Not giving reasons in the order but doing so in the Court for the first time is not permissible.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 26.03.2008 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.2017 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants.

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

3. The appellants herein were the writ petitioners whereas the respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition out of which this appeal arises.

4. Respondent no.1 is a statutory authority created under the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short called “MHADA Act”). It is known as Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board (for short “Board”). One of the objects of the Board is to make housing schemes for the benefit of different sections of the people and provide them the houses at reasonable costs. The Board is, therefore, a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

5. On 26.6.1995, the Board issued an advertisement for sale of 1924 flats (1673 non-deluxe 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.

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 Cooperative 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.

11. The Board on 10.05.2003/14.5.2003 held meetings to consider several matters. Amongst them, one matter was regarding sale of flats of Powai Project with which we are concerned here in this appeal and the offers made by the three societies and the appellant No.1 for purchase of the flats of Powai Project.

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, howeve