Supreme Court overturns High Court decision, deems petitions maintainable, allotments legal, and cancellation unjustified.

The Supreme Court found in favor of the appellants, concluding that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of alternative remedy. It held that the petitions were maintainable, the allotments were legal under existing regulations, and the cancellation was unjustified. The Court noted violations of natural justice and discrimination, remitting the matter back to the High Court for reevaluation within six weeks, with an interim stay on dispossession.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Legality of the allotment of plots without issuance of tender.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. Jurisdiction of CIDCO to cancel the allotment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the writ petition:
The appellants argued that the writ petitions are maintainable under certain circumstances, citing precedents such as *Smt. Gunwant Kaur & Ors. vs. Municipal Committee Bhatinda & Ors.*, *Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai & Ors.*, and *Harbanslal Sahnia & Another vs. Indian Oil Ltd. & Ors.*. They contended that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, as the case involved issues of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, and fundamental rights under Article 14. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction to grant relief.

2. Legality of the allotment of plots without issuance of tender:
The appellants argued that the allotments were made in accordance with the New Bombay Land Disposal Regulations, 1975, and the Land Pricing and Land Disposal Policy of CIDCO, which allowed for allotments by considering individual applications without tender. They cited instances of similar allotments made without tenders that were not canceled, arguing that the allotment to them was valid and not opposed to public policy. The Supreme Court noted that CIDCO's policy permitted such allotments and that the cancellation on the ground of non-issuance of tender was not justified.

3. Violation of principles of natural justice:
The appellants contended that the cancellation of the allotment was done without giving them a proper opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. They argued that the report by Dr. D.K. Shankaran, which was used to justify the cancellation, was made ex-parte and without their knowledge. The Supreme Court found merit in this argument, noting that the appellants were not given a fair hearing before the cancellation.

4. Discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India:
The appellants argued that they were singled out for cancellation while other similar allotments made without tenders were allowed to continue, violating their right to equality under Article 14. They provided evidence of other allotments where CIDCO had not taken any action despite similar circumstances. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that CIDCO's action appeared discriminatory and violated the appellants' fundamental rights.

5. Jurisdiction of CIDCO to cancel the allotment:
The appellants argued that CIDCO had no jurisdiction to cancel a concluded contract and that such an action was contrary to the express terms of the agreement. They contended that CIDCO could not invoke Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act to annul the agreement, as this right was reserved for the courts. The Supreme Court found that CIDCO's action to cancel the allotment was without jurisdiction and not permissible under the law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of alternative remedy and that the writ petitions were maintainable. It found that the allotments were made in accordance with the applicable regulations and policies, and the cancellation was unjustified. The Court also noted the violation of natural justice and discriminatory treatment of the appellants. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits within six weeks, with the interim stay on dispossession to continue until then.

---