Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 1418
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.V. GANGAPURWALA, S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
M/s. Shraddha Commercial Premises Coop. Society, Aurangabad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 8864 of 2013
Decided On : 12-09-2018
For the Petitioners:Mr. Rameshwar F. Totala, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, A.G.P., Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. S.S. Dande, Advocate, Mr. R.R. Mantri h/f Mr. Rahul R. Sancheti, Advocate.
Headnote:
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 15H and 19E - plot for manufacturing - Industrial Development Corporation - Petition that if representation of petitioner is not decided it would decide same - Court accepted said statement and gave direction to respondent–MIDC to decide representation within two months and communicate decision- In said writ petition MIDC never took a stand that acceptance of offer by petitioner was a conditional acceptance nor same was ground for refusing to allot plot to petitioner- Pursuant to order passed in Writ Petition MIDC communicated its intention of not allotting plot to petitioner by referring to Resolution and stating that land to cooperative societies would not be allotted- Resolution is subsequent to offer accepted by petitioner –Held, Petitioner was ready to accept any other plot- It was ready to constitute Private Limited Company or Partnership Firm- In one of letter also agreed to enhance amount of consideration- All these facts show that contract was never finalized- Enforceable contract did not come into existence petitioner would not inure to benefit of petitioner- Sections Specific Relief provides that when promoters of a company have before its incorporation entered into a contract for purpose of company and such contract is warranted by terms of incorporation company may enforce specific performance of contract- In present case there is nothing on record to remotely suggest that such a contract is warranted by terms of incorporation of petitioner proposed cooperative society- In absence thereof reliance placed by counsel for petitioner on Sections of Specific Relief Act appears to be misplaced petitioner- Proceedings were at nascent stage - No legal right was crystallized in favour of petitioner to seek allotment of a particular plot amount which was given by petitioner along with its letter after receiving offer of land was not en-cashed by respondent- No firm allotment letter came into existence thereby notifying that a particular plot is allotted to petitioner unregistered cooperative society- Legal right was not created in favour petitioner to claim specific performance and or seek directions for allotment of a particular plot we are not inclined to grant relief to petitioner however we do not appreciate stand of respondent – MIDC- On one hand it contends that proposed cooperative society is not competent to enter into transaction and on other hand application forms issued by MIDC also shows proposed cooperative societies as an applicant respondent being an instrumentality of State has to take one firm stand or should correct its application forms- Court direct respondents to take necessary care and caution while issuing application forms or inviting applications - Petition dismissed
S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.
1. The petitioner assails the orders dated 23.05.2006, 05.10.2007 and 21.10.2013 thereby refusing to allot the commercial plot to the petitioner in the Shendra Five Star Industrial area. The petitioner also seeks directions against the respondents to allot the petitioner land admeasuring 26,000 Square Meters as per letter dated 28.12.2005.
2. Mr. Totala, learned Advocate for the petitioner during the course of his erudite arguments canvassed following submissions-
(I) On 28.12.2005 respondent–Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter refereed to 'MIDC') gave an offer of land to the petitioner admeasuring 26,000 Square Meters at the rate of Rs. 190 per Square Meter and requested to submit Blue application with Demand Draft of Rs.24,70,000/towards the earnest money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the letter.
(II) The petitioner on 10.01.2006 within fifteen days accepted the offer unconditionally. The acceptance on the part of the petitioner gave rise to a concluded contract between the parties. It was not open for the respondent to resile from the contract after a period of four months and thirteen days.
(III) Under letter dated 23.05.2006 respondent–MIDC cancelled the offer on the ground that it does not allot the plot to a society in the Shendra Five Star Industrial area.
(IV) The petitioner immediately on 25.05.2006 submitted an application requesting appointment of the Chief Executive Officer for discussion and redeposited the Demand Draft to MIDC.
(V) The petitioner filed writ petition bearing no. 5778 of 2006. The Advocate for the MIDC made a statement in the said writ petition that if the representation of the petitioner is not decided it would decide the same. The Court accepted the said statement and gave direction to the respondent–MIDC to decide the representation within two months and communicate the decision. In the said writ petition the MIDC never took a stand that the acceptance of the offer by the petitioner was a conditional acceptance nor the same was the ground for refusing to allot the plot to the petitioner. Pursuant to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 5778 of 2006 the MIDC communicated it's intention of not allotting the plot to the petitioner by referring to the Resolution dated 09.04.2007 and stating that land to the cooperative societies would not be allotted. The Resolution is subsequent to the offer accepted by the petitioner.
(VI) The petitioner again filed Writ Petition No. 6991 of 2008. In the said writ petition the Court recorded that the Advocate of petitioner has expressed willingness of his client to accept any other alternate plot. The Advocate for the MIDC expressed that his client would consider availability of the other plot in any other area and whether same can be made available to the petitioner. In the said writ petition also it was not the stand of the MIDC that the concluded contract does not exist or that acceptance by the petitioner is a conditional acceptance. Till the Writ Petition No. 6991 of 2008 was disposed of, the respondent never took the plea that the acceptance was a conditional acceptance on the part of the petitioner.
(VII) During the pendency of the said Writ Petition No. 6991 of 2008 the MIDC went for auction of plots. The allottees were put to notice that the allotment shall be subject to outcome of writ petition.
(VIII) Writ Petition No. 6991 of 2008 was finally disposed of under order dated September 10, 2013 and the respondent was directed to apply his mind afresh to Annexure 'A' of the said petition and to take suitable decision. The Annexure 'A' was the representation of the petitioner.
(IX) Again the MIDC communicated the petitioner that in Shendra Five Star Industrial area commercial plots are allotted by calling tenders and the petitioner would not be allotted the plot.
(X) In all these proceeding the MIDC never took a stand that the contract is not concluded between the parties. It would be too late in t
