Back
2006 Supreme(Bom) 996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(V. G. Palshikar and V. M. Kanade, JJ.)
POPCORN ENTERTAINMENT and anotherPetitioners.
vs.
CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. and others Respondents.
Advocates Appeared
For respondent No.1: R. M. Sawant
For respondent No.2: P. I. Khemani, AGP List of cases referred:
Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Articles 14 and 226 Cancellation of allotment of plot by CIDCO Merely because CIDCO has acted in particular manner in relation to a particular group it cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily when it thinks not to act with the petitioners in the same manner Plea that wherever there is violation of principles of natural justice no other Court is competent to deal with it except Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution not tenable Such action can be questioned by filing appropriate civil suit. (1998) 8 SCC 107, Ref.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Article 226 Writ petition challenging decision of CIDCO to cancel the allotment of plot of land for erecting multiplex entertainment complex Plea taken that building of multiplex complex for entertaining and other commercial activities was a necessity in public interest as large section of people residing in Navi Mumbai will be deprived of their public entertainment if this complex is not allowed to com e up Interfering with a cancellation of an agreement involving building of entertainment complex is certainly not a public interest requirement for which the g olden rule of non-interference should be kept away.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Article 226 Public Interest Litigation Entertainment facilities in a town Not a matter of grave public interest Interference of Court not required Golden rule of non interference under Article 226 of constitution upheld and followed. Building of multiplex complex for entertaining and other commercial activities was a necessity in public interest as large section of people residing in Navi Mumbai will be deprived of their public entertainment if this complex is not allowed to come up. This according to him, is larger public interest to safeguard which Court must exercise writ jurisdiction. Court unable to accept this submission that the existence of entertainment facilities in a particular town is a matter of grave public interest requiring interference by this Court it is discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Interfering with a cancellation of an agreement involving building of entertainment complex is certainly not a public interest requirement for which the golden rule of noninterference should be kept away.
There are enough safeguards in the Code of Civil Procedure to seek urgent orders from Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. It cannot therefore be said that the remedy of civil suit is not efficacious. Similarly unilateral cancellation of executed contract is the cause of action. In such an event there is no question of principles of natural justice being violated. The CIDCO has unilaterally cancelled the agreement. Whether it can do so or not can be decided by Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Whether principles of natural justice are attracted to a particular action or not is also something which Civil Court can decide. Court unable to accept the submission that wherever there is violation of principles of natural justice no other Court is competent to deal with it except this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Article 226 Maintainability of writ petition as public interest litigation Alternate effective remedy available Appropriate civil case can be filed to have proper remedy Writ jurisdiction need not be invoked. There are enough safeguards in the Code of Civil Procedure to seek urgent orders from Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. It cannot therefore be said that the remedy of civil suit is not efficacious. Similarly unilateral cancellation of executed contract is the cause of action. In such an event there is no question of principles of natural justice being violated. The CIDCO has unilaterally cancelled the agreement. Whether it can do so or not can be decided by Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Whether principles of natural justice a re attracted to a particular action or not is also something which Civil Court can decide. Court unable to accept the submission that wherever there is violation of principles of natural justice no other Court is competent to deal with it except this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
V. G. PALSHIKAR, J. : - By these two petitions the petitioners have challenged the action taken by the respondents the City and Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CIDCO"). The petitioners Popcorn Entertainment Corporation Limited in Writ Petition No. 9467 of 2005 and Platinum Entertainment in Writ Petition No. 9468 of 2005 were allotted plot of land by CIDCO for erec.ting entertainment complex in Navi Mumbai district. That was to be a commercial building to be erected by construction of multiplex complex and allied complimentary activities. The price fixed by CIDCO was paid by the petitioners and the petitioners were put in physical possession of the plot.
2. By the impugned communication CIDCO has cancelled the entire transaction and claimed possession. of the plot from the petitioners. Hence they have filed have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the entire action and interim relief of injunction restraining CIDCO from taking possession. Both the petitions assail the order passed by CIDCO cancelling agreement of lease as also praying for quashing of stop work notice issued by CIDCO. Initially the matter was heard in vacation and thereafter was adjourned from time to time. When the matter was called out today the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners was asked to explain the maintainability of the petition as effective alternate remedy by way of civil suit for declaration and injunction was available to the petitioners. When on earlier occasion such query was made by the Court relying on certain judgments of the Bombay High Court time was sought by the learned Advocate to consider those judgments and make submissions.
3. Accordingly today the learned counsel made his submissions and relying on certain passages in the judgments itself contended that these petitions are tenable. This Court in the Case of Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Limited vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (4) ALL MR 429 held that when efficacious alternate remedy is available writ jurisdiction should not be invoked. This Court has observed as under :
"The tendency to flout the rule of law is on increase and consequently judicial activism is also increased, and in several cases writ jurisdiction is moved in spite of the fact that alternative efficacious remedy is available on a specious plea and it is expedient in public interest to do so. In an exceptional case of public interest where large number of people are affected it may be that a writ petition could be entertained but the question is whether it would be a writ jurisdiction to be invoked as a matter of course even in dispute intra parties where there is no public interest at all or involved at all. Taking into consideration the fact that the question is ever repeated, the Court are pressed to decide that question so that as far as our Court is concerned the .same principle of law that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked where alternate remedy is possible, has to be followed. It is a mandate issued by the Supreme Court that the powers therein, i.e. Article 226 shall not be exercised in cases where alternate remedy is available, always leaving apart certain well known glaring exceptions."
Learned counsel relied upon the observations of this Court that in exceptional case Qf public interest where large number people are affected it may be that a writ petition could be entertained and it was contended placing heavy reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademarks Mumbai and ors. (1998) 8 SCC 107 that the present petition is tenable. The Supreme Court of India has observed in para 15 of its judgment as under:
"15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain r
