Writ Petition Can’t Be Maintained Against E-Tender: Supreme Court Dismisses Housing Corporation’s Appeal Challenging MHADA’s Jurisdiction to Proceed With GTB Nagar Redevelopment
The Supreme Court was considering the issue of whether the e-tender issued by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority in pursuance of a Cabinet decision interfered with the contractual rights of the appellants.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
While observing that a writ petition cannot be maintained against the e-tender issued by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority when the Societies support the development initiative for GTB Nagar, the Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a Developer, Lakhani Housing Corporation, challenging the Authority's jurisdiction to proceed with such redevelopment.
The Supreme Court was considering the issue of whether the e-tender issued by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority in pursuance of a Cabinet decision, followed up with a government resolution, interferes with the contractual rights of the appellants.
The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said, “We have already found that the expenses asserted by the appellant in pursuing the agreements have not been substantiated in the writ proceedings, nor have they established that it is by their intervention the conveyances were facilitated. The appellant may have a remedy against the individuals or the Societies but the writ petition cannot be maintained as against the e-tender issued by the MHADA, especially when the Societies in one voice support the development initiative of MHADA; which is a joint venture as permitted by the DCPR.”
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi represented the Appellants while AOR Rajesh Srivastava represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
In a writ petition filed by the appellants before the Bombay High Court initially, stay was granted on the fundamental question of jurisdiction of MHADA to proceed with a cluster redevelopment in a land having an extent of approximately 11.20 acres, commonly known as ‘Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar’ (subject land) which is not owned by the State and lies as a free hold. The High Court noticed that the land once had 25 buildings standing on it, housing around 1200 families, the allotment having been originally made to the refugees from Pakistan. The buildings were 62 to 66 years’ old, stood in an extremely dilapidated condition and were demolished in the year 2019 after proper notices were issued and proceedings taken under the BMC Act.
The appellants approached the residents of the said building about redeveloping the land and obtained agreements from individual members. They also spent around Rs. 17.31 Crores pursuing the initial steps for redevelopment. However, the redevelopment project did not fructify since the residents did not have proper title deeds. The Division Bench of the High Court finally dismissed the writ petition. This judgment has been challenged before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the Cluster Development Schemes (CDS), as envisaged under the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 (DCPR) specifically provides for the land owners or the housing societies to jointly carry out a development on free hold lands and in that circumstances, the e-tender issued by MHADA can neither be faulted nor can MHADA’s initiative be termed as without jurisdiction. It was further noticed that as of now, the housing societies and the residents of 25 buildings who are respondents unanimously support the redevelopment initiated by MHADA.
As per the Bench, MHADA couldn’t also be said to have no jurisdiction to implement a Cluster Development Scheme, in a freehold land, since it is made possible as per the DCPR, if it is carried out jointly with the land owners/ Cooperative Housing Societies. “In the present case, at the risk of repetition, we have to emphasise that those Cooperative Housing Societies who are parties herein, in one voice support the intervention and initiative taken by MHADA”, it said.
The Bench noticed that despite a decade and two years having passed, there has been no construction activity started on the subject land. As per the Bench, the agreements executed with the land owners are unregistered agreements, unenforceable in the eyes of the law. “We would however not make any declaration on that aspect since our finding, as found by the High Court of Bombay, is that the petitioners’ remedy is not under Article 226. The appellants may have a remedy of specific performance which the appellants have not at all pursued as of now. In the guise of challenging the etender, the appellants have been attempting to enforce contractual rights as against the individual occupants and also against the Societies”, it said.
The Bench was of the view that the appellants had no locus standi to challenge the e-tender in a writ proceeding, when the redevelopment of the said land was carried out as a Cluster Development Scheme under the DCPR, which enabled MHADA, jointly with the land owners/Cooperative Societies, to carry out such development. The Appellants also failed to show any vested right to carry out the development, especially when there was not even a registered agreement with any individual or the Societies.
Thus, the Bench dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Lakhani Housing Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 489)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, C. A. Sundaram, Abhimanyu Bhandari, AOR Rooh-e-hina Dua, Advocates Harshit Khanduja, Shreya Arora
Respondents: AOR Rajesh Srivastava, Advocates Mr. Bipin Joshi, Yash Vardhan Singh, AOR Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Chirag M. Shroff, Advocates Mahima C Shroff, Anand Thumbayil, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Aagam Kaur, Kartikey, Gayatri Agarwal, Shubhangi Agarwal, Utkarsh Kumar
