A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respective respondents waive notice.

2. By consent, matter is taken up for final disposal, forthwith.

3. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed principally against the decision of Respondent No. 2 City and Industrial Development Corporation (for short 'CIDCO') declining to grant No-objection certificate for grant of additional 100% FSI over basic FSI of 1.5 already available on the land bearing Plot No. 1A in Sector 19D, Vashi (for short 'said land'), despite the Government order dated 31st August, 2009 enabling the Respondent No. 3 Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (for short 'Corporation') to permit additional FSI for development of proposed IT & ITES use.

4. Briefly stated, the petitioner-Society had applied for allotment of 32 Shops, 3 Offices and 1 Canteen, constructed on the said land, in the month of November, 2003. CIDCO accepted the said Applications of the Society and issued separate letters of allotment for each unit.

5. After the allotment, the petitioner-Society moved Application dated 16th November, 2004 for grant of permission to use the units alloted to it for commercial user and for grant of unconsumed F.S.I. on the basis of GDCR of Corporation, sanctioned by the State Government vide Notification dated 27th May, 2004. That request was considered by the Board of Directors of CIDCO. The Board, vide Resolution No. 9142 dated 23rd December, 2004, accepted the request of the petitioner-Society. Accordingly, approval was granted for allotment of balance unconsumed FSI on the said land and also to issue NOC regarding change of user of the plot from existing Shops and Godown to general commercial use like, Shopping Mall, Restaurant, Multiplex, Marriage Hall, etc., subject to approval of the Corporation, on payment of total lease premium of Rs. 15.49 crores, at the rate of Rs. 19,562/per square metre for plot area of 7916.13 square metres, from which, the premium of Rs. 6.72 crores paid earlier was to be adjusted. Consistent with the said decision, the Marketing Manager (III) issued modified letter of allotment to the petitioner-Society on 4th January, 2005. The Corporation also granted permission for change of user, vide letter dated 15th February, 2005.

6. However, since inquiry was conducted by the State Government in respect of the allotment of land made contrary to the established Rules, Regulations and conventions by CIDCO, during the period 26th May, 2003 to 28th December, 2004, CIDCO did not accept the balance payment of lease premium and also did not execute the lease agreement as per the letter of allotment dated 4th January, 2005. That was on account of the orders issued by the Managing Director of CIDCO on 2nd May, 2005, pursuant to the directions of the State Government. Inasmuch as, the allotment made to petitioner-Society was also subject matter of the said inquiry. As a result, the petitioner-Society filed Writ Petition No. 3970/2005 in this Court seeking directions against CIDCO to accept the balance payment of lease premium and execute the lease agreement as per the letter of allotment. This Court, by interim order dated 19th August, 2005, directed the Board of Directors of CIDCO to consider the Representation to be made by the petitioner-Society in that regard. As per the said directions, the Board of Directors, in its meeting held on 5th October, 2005, reaffirmed the allotment of the said land to the petitioner-Society and approved the report to be submitted to the State Government. The report from CIDCO was then submitted to the State Government. The State Government having accepted the said report, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 12th December, 2005.

7. Consequent thereto, CIDCO executed the agreement of lease in respect of the said land in favour of the petitioner-Society on 29th March, 2006. The agreement specifies the land user for general commercial use