Writ petitions can be maintained against administrative actions affecting contracts, especially when principles of natural justice and public policy are at stake.

1 SLP (C) NO. 11085 OF 2006
Leave granted.

2 The above appeal was filed against the final judgment and order dated 30.06.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W. P. No. 9467 of 2005 whereby the High Court has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellants by holding that the appellants have an equally efficacious remedy of filing a civil suit and thus the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.

3 BACKGROUND FACTS:
The appellant made an application for allotment of a plot on 18.05.2004 for construction of a multiplex at Kharghar railway station. The first respondent, The City Industrial Development Corporation (in short, "CIDCO") asked the appellants to pay an EMD of Rs. 20 lacs being 10% of the tentative price of the plot in order to consider the application of the appellant. The appellant deposited the said amount of EMD immediately. CIDCO, vide its Board Resolution dated 03.06.2004, approved the allotment in favour of the appellant considering the fact that there were no multiplex in the area and the earlier effort of CIDCO to advertise for such plots had met with no response. CIDCO issued allotment letter in favour of the appellant asking the appellant to pay Rs. 1,80,00,000/- lacs being the balance price of the plot. The appellant made two separate payments of Rs. 90 lacs each towards the balance price of the plot on 16.08.2004 and 19.08.2004. The appellant paid a sum of Rs. 20,00,600/- being the other charges demanded by the respondent. The appellant was asked to pay a further sum of Rs. 65,096/- which the appellant paid immediately. CIDCO unilaterally decided to ask the appellants to pay a further sum of Rs. 20 lacs by enhancing the rate at which the plot was to be allotted to the appellant from Rs. 2500/- per sq. metre as demanded in the allotment letter to Rs. 2,750/- per sq. metre because the plot of the appellant was on a 24 metre road. The appellant on 17.11.2004 paid a further payment of Rs. 20 lacs along with Rs. 2,96,078/- plus Rs. 4,957/- being the additional cost and the other charges. On 14.01.2005, the appellant paid a further sum of Rs. 19,828/- being the sum demanded by the respondent. The appellant on 17.01.2005 entered into an agreement to lease with the respondent for the allotment of the plot. On 28.02.2005, CIDCO being the Development Authority of the area issued commencement certificate to the appellant permitting the appellant to start construction. On 14.07.2005, the appellant received a show cause notice seeking to cancel the allotment in favour of the appellant on the ground that the allotment was void in view of S.23 of the Contract Act as being opposed to public policy. The main ground in the show cause notice was that the allotment was without issuance of tender and was opposed to public policy. On 27.07.2005, the appellant submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice. On 16.12.2005, CIDCO issued an order canceling the agreement to lease and sought to resume the possession of the plot. According to the appellant only the appellant was singled out for cancellation whereas hundreds of allotments made without issuance of tender were allowed to remain which is also a matter of record. In these facts, on 28.12.2005, the appellant approached the High Court by way of writ petition against the said cancellation order dated 16.12.2005. The writ petition was numbered as 9467 of 2005 on 02.01.2006 and the High Court granted stay of the order dated 16.12.2005 and fixed the matter for further hearing on 04.01.2006. The appellant, vide reference dated 08.03.2006 of CIDCO, under the Right to Information Act , 2005 has asked them to supply information regarding the allotments made by Social Service Department without any advertisement i.e. by considering individual applications.

4 On 16.03.2006, the appellants filed their rejoinder before the High Court pointing out further information sought under the Right to Information Act which clearly proved that the allotment in favour of the