The court emphasized that administrative discretion must be exercised fairly, considering both parties' interests, especially when external factors impede contractual obligations.

JUDGMENT :

SHYAM C. CHANDAK J.

1) Present Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following substantive reliefs :-

(i) The Respondent Nos.2 and/or 3 are bound and liable to grant extension of time limit for the period from 14.12.2012 to the period of 3 years from the date of Order, when such extension shall be granted to the Petitioner No.1 to complete the development/construction of the suit plot without levying additional lease premium and without insisting on execution/providing of Bank Guarantee of any amount;

(ii) The impugned Show Cause Notice dated 30.09.2016, Termination Notice dated 24.04.2017, Order dated 31.07.2017 i.e., condition to pay the additional lease premium, the Demand Notice/Order 02.01.2018 and the Termination Notice/Order dated 02.04.2018 issued by Respondent Nos.2 and/or 3, be quashed and set aside.

(iii) To command the Respondent Nos.2 and/or 3 to forthwith restore the possession of the suit plot with the Petitioners which the Respondent Nos.2 and/or 3 have taken back in their possession on dated 17.04.2018.

1.1) The aforesaid I.A. No.4369 of 2023 is seeking to amend the Petition to modify/change the registered address of Petitioner No.1 and to replace the said Petitioner No.2 with the Applicant No.2 therein.

1.2) The aforesaid I.A. No.7943 of 2023 is seeking to permit the Applicant therein to intervene in this Petition and I.A. No.4369 of 2023.

2) Heard Mr.Sathe, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, Smt.Bhatia, the learned AGP for Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Hegde, the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3-CIDCO. Perused entire record.

2.1) None appeared for the Applicant in I.A. No.7943 of 2023 when taken up for hearing.

2.2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consult of learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing.

3) Facts in brief are that, in December 2006 the Respondent No.2 issued a tender bid as Scheme No. MM-1/02/2006/2007, in respect of its Plot Nos.15 and 16, admeasuring about 10377.50 sq. meters situated in Sector-15, CBD-Belapur Rode of Navi Mumbai, District Thane (“the suit plot”), to construct a “Star hotel” there. By way of said scheme, Respondent No.2 invited offers by interalia representing Navi Mumbai as city of the future, stating many future projects including Airport, Water Transport etc. and representing/projecting Belapur, as the heart of Navi Mumbai. It was specifically claimed that the International Airport will link Belapur to major cities in the World.

3.1) In the said bid, the Application of M/s. PVP Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (“the Original Allottee”) was accepted by the Respondent No.2. Accordingly, an Allotment Letter dated 27.07.2007 was issued to the said allottee in respect of the suit plot against payment of Lease Premium of Rs.82,70,46,900/- and Misc. Charges of Rs.5,25,350/-. Petitioner No.1 was a subsidiary company of the said Allottee. Hence, said entire amount was paid by Petitioner No.1. The Respondent No.2 acknowledged the same by its receipts dated 27.07.2007, 03.09.2007, 01.10.2007 and receipt dated 01.10.2007 for Rs.5,25,350/- towards Misc. Charges. Later on, at the request of said M/s. PVP Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (the Original Allottee) and against the aforesaid payments, Respondent No.2, by its letter bearing Ref. No. CIDCO/MM-/PLT/Star Hotel/2007/417 dated 29.11.2007 transferred all the benefits in the suit plot in favour of Petitioner No.1, Interalia specifically mentioning that all the terms and conditions of the scheme booklet will remain unchanged and binding. This was followed by an Agreement to Lease (“the Agreement”) of the suit plot, duly executed by Respondent No.2 in favour of the Petitioner No.1 and registered with a stamp duty of Rs.4,13,54,500/- and registration charges of Rs.30,000/-. Then the Respondent No.2 put the suit plot in possession of the Petitioner No.1. Since then i.e., from dated 14.12.2007, the Petitioner No.1 was in possession and occupation of the said pl