REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.          477                    OF 2009   (Arising out of SLP(C ) No. 3162 of 2006)

Kamlakar Bhimrao Patil  ……Appellant

Versus

Maharashtra Industrial Dev. Corpn. ……Respondent

J U D G M E N T

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of

the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition filed.  The writ petition

was filed by the appellant questioning legality of the order passed by the

Maharashtra  Industrial  Development  Corporation  (in  short  the

‘Corporation’) dated 30.3.2005.  

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

By Resolution dated 17.8.2004 a decision was taken for allotment of

land at a particular price.  The money was deposited on 9.3.2005 but letter

dated 30.3.2005 was written to M/s. Everest Realtors Private Ltd. intimating

them  that  the  request  for  allotment  of  land  in  the  Airoli,  Navi,

Knowledge/Apparel Park cannot be considered.  The pay orders submitted

along with letter dated 9.3.2005 were returned.  According to the appellant

no reason or basis has been indicated and the High Court misconstrued the

prayer  in  the  writ  petition  as  if  it  was  for  enforcement  of  specific

performance  of  contract  with  the  Corporation.   The  appellant  has

categorically stated that the subject matter of challenge was the impugned

decision taken by the Corporation to repudiate the contract.  The High Court

erroneously,  according  to  the  appellant  came  to  hold  that  it  can  be

considered by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

2

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that no reason has

been indicated as to why the Corporation decided not to go ahead with the

contract.

5. Learned counsel for the Corporation on the other hand submitted that

the Corporation decided not to take any note of the payments made by M/s.

Everest Realtors Private Ltd.  In fact the Resolution earlier related to the

present appellant.  

6. It is clarified by learned counsel for the appellant that he is a Director

of the Pvt. Ltd. Co. and therefore, the reasons indicated have no relevance.

7. We find that this is a case which could have been decided by the High

Court and therefore we set aside the impugned order of the High Court.  The

writ petition shall be restored for disposal on merit.  To avoid unnecessary

delay,  let  the  parties  appear  before  the  High  Court  on  9.2.2009.   The

Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to direct listing of the

petition  before  an appropriate  bench.   It  is  made clear  that  we have not

expressed any opinion  on the  merits  of  the  case.   Till  9.2.2009 no third

parties’ interest shall be created by the Corporation.  It is open to the High

3

Court to pass such interim orders during the pendency of the writ petition as

the circumstances warrant.

8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

………...................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……........................................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, January 28, 2009         

4