The court upheld the forfeiture of earnest money due to the petitioner's failure to comply with contractual obligations, emphasizing that reliefs sought were not maintainable under Article 226.

ORDER :

G. S. Kulkarni, J.

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for a relief that the petitioner be granted allotment of a plot of land by respondent No.1-MIDC in lieu of the plot of land allotted to the petitioner qua allotment letter dated 12 February 2015. It is also prayed that in the alternative the respondents be directed to refund the earnest money alongwith interest. There is also a prayer that the respondents be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner as the petitioner did not start the project and as huge loss was suffered by the petitioner on account of the plot of land being not allotted to the petitioner.

2. In our opinion, the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner are thoroughly misconceived which can be seen from the following facts:

On 28 January 2014 the petitioner made an application for allotment of2000 sq. meters of land for the project to the MIDC. The petitioner’s application was scrutinized and on such preliminary scrutiny, a communication dated 5 November 2014 was issued to the petitioner informing the petitioner that on scrutiny of the petitioner’s application, the land allotment committee of the Corporation has decided to offer to the petitioner land admeasuring 1500 sq. meters and an offer was made to the petitioner at the rate of premium for land at Rs.2660/-, and for which the petitioner was called upon to deposit Rs.9,97,500/- towards the earnest money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said communication. The following condition as incorporated in the letter, is required to be noted which reads thus:-

“7. In case, you fail to accept the final allotment after it is communicated to you or fail to pay the balance of premium amount or to execute the Agreement to Lease, the Corporation will be entitled to forfeit the entire amount of Earnest Money paid by you.”

3. The petitioner deposited the earnest money of Rs.9,97,500/- on 21 November 2014 pursuant thereto an allotment letter dated 12 February 2015 came to be issued to the petitioner informing the petitioner that plot No.H-145/2 in Additional Nashik Ambad Industrial Area was allotted to the petitioner subject to the petitioner paying an amount of Rs. 29,92,500/- being the balance amount of the premium, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the said allotment order by drawing a demand draft in favour of MIDC, Nashik. The allotment letter incorporated the specific conditions in paragraphs 2 and 3 in regard to cancellation of earnest money deposit which read thus:

“(2) In case the allottee fails to pay the balance amount of premium within the period mentioned above, the allotment shall be liable to cancelled without further notice.

(3) In the event of the allotment being cancelled as foresaid the the corporation will be entitled to forfeit the whole of the earnest money received with the application.”

4. It appears from the record that for a substantial period of almost one year, the petitioner did not make any payment of the balance lease premium of Rs.29,92,500/- which was in fact required to be paid within 30 days from the allotment letter dated 12 February 2015. What the petitioner did was that the petitioner addressed a letter dated 31 March 2016 to the Regional Officer of the MIDC-respondent No.2 with a subject “Regarding Refund of initial amount”. In such letter while demanding the said amount, it was stated by the petitioner that the plot allotted to the petitioner by the MIDC (Plot No.H-145/2) was not suitable for the petitioner’s business for the reason that it was adjacent to the slum area and therefore, another plot ought to have been allotted to the petitioner. Thus, such demand for refund of the earnest money was made almost after one year.

5. The record would further indicate that a letter dated 29 February 2016 was addressed by the Regional Officer (IT), MIDC, Mumbai, calling upon the petitioner for discussion on 2 March 2016 with a specific condition that