JUDGMENT :

Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.

1. The present appeal arises from an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 3rd February, 2023 disallowing the appellants herein from relying upon and disclosing certain additional documents by way of two supplementary affidavits in aid of the Writ Petition.

2. One of the principal issues raised by the appellants, by way of disclosing these additional documents, is that the private respondents 7 and 8 had misrepresented the facts to this Hon’ble Court and were seeking to obtain orders without disclosing these documents. In fact, the documents sought to be disclosed by way of these supplementary affidavits were:-

i. A demand notice by the KMC and a copy of the filled up application form by the respondent No. 8 for obtaining a certified copy of the deed. Both documents were obtained by the petitioner, pursuant to his application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 24th October, 2017.

ii. The agreement between R-7 and R-8.

iii. The power of attorney executed by R-7 in favour of R-8.

iv. A screenshot of the land area of the subject premises, popularly known as Avidipta-2.

3. The appellants, the added writ petitioners, sought to disclose these additional documents by way of two separate supplementary affidavits at pages 23 and 98 respectively of the stay petition. This, the learned Judge thought, was a dilatory tactic, which would necessarily delay the hearing of the Writ Petition.

4. The documents sought to be disclosed by the appellants would, if allowed to be disclosed, open up a totally new case, thus enlarging the scope of the Writ Petition.

5. The issues which weighed with the learned Single Judge to disallow the filing of such affidavits may be summarised as under:

A. The arguments on behalf of the original writ petitioners were concluded prior to affirmation of the first affidavit. The first affidavit was also silent as to how such documents were procured by the appellants, the added writ petitioners.

B. The added writ petitioners, the appellants herein, sought to bring on record the documents when their turn to advance arguments arose, as, consciously the person to whom such documents were addressed by the KMC had not produced the same. Thus, the practice of introduction of documents in instalments by different routes of the writ petitioners was deprecated.

C. The disclosure of such documents by the appellants would result in enlarging the scope of the Writ Petition, which is impermissible as the court in exercising its power of judicial review could not permit such enlargement.

D. As a consequence of the aforesaid issue of enlarging the scope of the Writ Petition, the learned Judge held that such disclosure of documents at a belated stage had been done purposefully by the appellant to cause delay in disposal of the Writ Petition.

E. It is on these grounds that both affidavits, sought to be filed by the petitioners/appellants herein, were disallowed.

6. To understand this issue, it is imperative that a brief summary be given of the facts of the case.

7. The petitioners are all flat owners in the project named Avidipta-1 and are co-owners of the land on which Avidipta-1 has been established, covering approximately 9 acres. Avidipta-2 is situated or is proposed to be situated on approximately 3 acres. Though the floor area ratio (FAR) of Avidipta-2 has been sought for on the basis of the entire land, covering both 1 and 2, which means, the petitioners’ land is being construed as part of Avidipta-2 for obtaining the FAR in respect of the second phase. This is why the petitioners are aggrieved and have approached this Hon’ble Court.

8. The main issue hovers around the fact, that the petitioners claim exclusive rights over 9.04 acres of land out of the total 12.27 acres by virtue of registered sale deeds and therefore claim to have exclusive right to the available unutilised FAR at phase one, which under no circumstances can be transferred or utilised by or for the development