FORESHORE COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD Vs. NIVARAHAKKSURAKSHA SAMITI BOMBAY:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Maharashtra Government allotted certain plots of land to the Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society) , a cooperative Society formed by some sitting and retired Judges of the Supreme court and Bombay High court. The land was originally allotted to the Society on a ground rent calculated at 8 per centof the value of the land worked out at Rs. 2,280. 00 per sq. metre but, by a letter dated 21/01/1990 (the correct date appears to be 2/01/1990, the ground rent was reduced to six and a half per cent per annum on the value of the land calculated at the rate of Rs. 1,050. 00 per sq. metre. A writ petition was filed by the Nivara Hakk Suraksha Samiti, Bombay, by way of public interest litigation, challenging the validity of the above allotment and reduction in lease rent. The High court, after hearing contentions of both the parties, upheld the allotment but set aside the reduction of the lease rent as per the letter dated 21/01/1990. The writ petitioners before the High court as well as the Society have preferred these petitions for special leave before us.

(2.) In support of his petition, Shri Sebastian, learned counsel for the writ-petitioners raised four contentions:

(3.) Shri Sebastian then argued that para 11 of the guidelines should be declared unconstitutional since there is no justification to dispense with the rule of publicity even in the allotment of one or two plots. This contention was repelled by the High court by pointing out that there was nothing unreasonable about a government policy that press notes need not be issued where only one or two isolated plots are available for allotment and that all that was necessary is that even the allotment of such isolated plots must be bona fide and in the public interest. We agree. We would also like to point out that paragraph 11 is really intended to protect public interest and to ensure that land is allotted after due publicity so that all persons interested may compete therefor and their relative merits assessed but that an exception to provide for allotment of minor extents of land does not really constitute an objectionable inroad into the salutary public policy. We are, therefore, of the opinion that paragraph 11 is not unconstitutional as contended for by the learned counsel.