AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. V. Gangapurwala, J
The petitioner assails the orders dated 23.05.2006, 05.10.2007 and 21.10.2013 thereby refusing to allot the commercial plot to the petitioner in the
Shendra Five Star Industrial area. The petitioner also seeks directions against the respondents to allot the petitioner land admeasuring 26,000 Square
Meters as per letter dated 28.12.2005.
Mr. Totala, learned Advocate for the petitioner during the course of his erudite arguments canvassed following submissionsÂ
[I] On 28.12.2005 respondent â€" Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter refereed to 'MIDC') gave an offer of land to the
petitioner admeasuring 26,000 Square Meters at the rate of Rs. 190 per Square Meter and requested to submit Blue application with Demand Draft of
Rs.24,70,000/Â towards the earnest money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the letter.
[II] The petitioner on 10.01.2006 within fifteen days accepted the offer unconditionally. The acceptance on the part of the petitioner gave rise to a
concluded contract between the parties. It was not open for the respondent to resile from the contract after a period of four months and thirteen days.
[III] Under letter dated 23.05.2006 respondent â€" MIDC cancelled the offer on the ground that it does not allot the plot to a society in the Shendra
Five Star Industrial area.
[IV] The petitioner immediately on 25.05.2006 submitted an application requesting appointment of the Chief Executive Officer for discussion and
redeposited the Demand Draft to MIDC.
[V] The petitioner filed writ petition bearing no. 5778 of 2006. The Advocate for the MIDC made a statement in the said writ petition that if the
representation of the petitioner is not decided it would decide the same. The Court accepted the said statement and gave direction to the respondent
â€" MIDC to decide the representation within two months and communicate the decision. In the said writ petition the MIDC never took a stand that
the acceptance of the offer by the petitioner was a conditional acceptance nor the same was the ground for refusing to allot the plot to the petitioner.
Pursuant to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 5778 of 2006 the MIDC communicated it's intention of not allotting the plot to the petitioner by
referring to the Resolution dated 09.04.2007 and stating that land to the coÂoperative societies would not be allotted. The Resolution is subsequent to
the offer accepted by the petitioner.
[VI] The petitioner again filed Writ Petition No. 6991 of 2008. In the said writ petition the Court recorded that the Advocate of petitioner has
expressed willingness of his client to accept any other alternate plot. The Advocate for the MIDC expressed that his client would consider availability
of the other plot in any other area and whether same can be made available to the petitioner. In the said writ petition also it was not the stand of the
MIDC that the concluded contract does not exist or that acceptance by the petitioner is a conditional acceptance. Till the Writ Petition No. 6991 of
2008 was disposed of, the respondent never took the plea that the acceptance was a conditional acceptance on the part of the petitioner.
[VII] During the pendency of the said Writ Petition No. 6991 of 2008 the MIDC went for auction of plots. The allottees were put to notice that the
allotment shall be subject to outcome of writ petition.
[VIII] Writ Petition No. 6991 of 2008 was finally disposed of under order dated September 10, 2013 and the respondent was directed to apply his
mind afresh to Annexure 'A' of the said petition and to take suitable decision. The Annexure 'A' was the representation of the petitioner.
[IX] Again the MIDC communicated the petitioner that in Shendra Five Star Industrial area commercial plots are allotted by calling tenders and the
petitioner would not be allotted the plot.
[X] In all these proceeding the MIDC never took a stand that the contract is not concluded between the parties. It would be too late in the day for the
respondents now to contend that the contract is not a concluded contract.
[XI] The Advocate for the petitioner to substantiate his contention that the acceptance was a valid acceptance and the contract was a concluded
contract relied on the following judgments Â
[ i] Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kuamr Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2006 (6) Mh. L. J. 6.
[ii] Jawahar Lal Burman Vs. Union of India reported in AIR (1962) SC 378.
 [iii]Manohar S/o. Rambhau Galghate Vs. Saraswato CoÂoperative Housing Society Ltd. Dindayal Nagar, Nagpur and others reported in 2005 (3)
Mh. L. J. 297.
[ iv] Deviprasad Khandelwal and Sons Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1969 BOM 163.
[v] Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. Vs. HJ Baker and Bros. and others reported in AIR 1999 Gujarat 209.
[vi] Progressive Constructions Ltd. Vs. Bharat Hydro Power Corporation Ltd. reported in AIR 1996 DEL 1992.
[vii]Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013 (1) RLW 920.
[XII] The respondents are not coming with clean hands. The letter of acceptance is in two parts. First part is the unconditional acceptance of an offer
by the MIDC and the second part of the letter of acceptance dated 10.01.2006 is mere expression of desire of the petitioner mentioning that they have
submitted list of fifteen members along with the project report and required land / area as per the project is about 35,000 Square Meters. The same
cannot be said to be a conditional acceptance. The second part of the letter that desire of 35,000 Square Meters is only a submission of the petitioner
for consideration to allot additional area and the same is not a condition precedent for accepting the offer. The acceptance is in consonance with
Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act. The petitioner had deposited the amount of consideration viz. the earnest amount as demanded by the
respondent. The offer is deemed to be accepted even as per Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
The learned Advocate submits that respondent â€" MIDC is discriminating the petitioner. The respondents are relying on the Resolution dated
09.04.2007 to contend that land in the Shendra Five Star Industrial area is not to be allotted to a cooperative society, whereas the petitioner has placed
on record the allotments made to cooperative societies of commercial plots without issuing tender. The respondents are blowing hot and cold to suit
their purpose. The Resolution relied by the respondents dated 09.04.2007 is much after the petitioner had accepted the offer of the respondent for
allotment of 26000 Square Meters of land at Shendra Five Star Industrial area. The Resolution dated 09.04.2007 will not have any effect on the rights
crystallized in favour of the petitioner.
[XIII] The respondent  MIDC is not entitled to take unilateral decision of rescinding the contract. The same would amount to breach of contract.
The learned Advocate relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Sunil Pannalal Banthia and others Vs. City and Industrial Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and another reported in (2007) 10 SCC 674 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of M/s.
Shree Ambica Developers Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2012 (3) Mh. L. J. 640. The learned Advocate submits that acceptance
of an offer by the respondent was completed as against the petitioner and a concluded contract came into existence the moment the payment was
made by the petitioner. The learned Advocate relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Manohar S/o. Rambhau
Galghate Vs. Saraswati CoÂoperative Housing Society Ltd. and others reported in 2005 (3) Mh. L. J. 297.
[XIV] The contention of the respondent that the petitioner should approach the Civil Court and this Court would not entertain the present petition for
enforcing the rights under the contract is not in consonance with the legal position. This Court can entertain the writ petition for enforcement of
contractual obligation. The respondent â€" MIDC is the instrumentality of the State. It's acts are arbitrary, in such a case, this Court can entertain the
writ petition. The learned Advocate relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of ABL International Ltd. and another Vs. Export Credit
Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others reported in (2007) 3 SCC 553, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of M/s.
Punya Coal Roadlines Vs. M/s. Western Coalfield Ltd. and another reported in 2015
(3) ALL M.R. 717 and the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Popcorn Entertainment and another Vs. City Industrial Development Corporation
and another reported in (2007) 9 SCC 593.
[XV] The case put forth by the respondent that there is a novatio of contract is erroneous. On one hand respondent come with the plea that no
concluded contract exists and on the other hand are taking plea of novatio of contract, meaning thereby that concluded contract existed between the
parties. There is a consensus between the parties and just by showing willingness to pay the enhanced amount of consideration cannot be said to be
a novation. The learned Advocate relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Mukul Sharma Vs. Orion India Proivate Ltd. Through its
managing Director reported in (2016) 12 SCC 623.Â
[XVI] The respondents have allotted the commercial plots directly to the private parties and also to cooperative societies, as such, they cannot contend
that the commercial plot cannot be allotted to a cooperative society. The learned Advocate relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of
Shyam Telelink Ltd. now Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. Vs. Union of India dated October 5, 2010.
[XVII] The learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits that the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner is a proposed cooperative
society, and as such, is not entitled to enter into a contract is absolutely erroneous. The learned counsel relies on Section 15ÂH and 19ÂE of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 and to substantiate his contention relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Jay Narain Parasrampuria (Dead)
and others Vs. Pushpa Devi Saraf and others reported in (2006) 7 SCC 756. The learned Advocate submits that the petitioner was ready to abide
by each and every term put forth by the respondents and for that purpose even had issued communications but the respondents had decided not to
allot plot to the petitioner under any circumstances. The petitioner is a proposed cooperative society for the benefit of its members. The respondents
being instrumentality of the State cannot discriminate and act in arbitrary manner. The respondents be directed to allot plot admeasuring 26,000 Square
Meters as per their offer letter.
[XVIII] It is only after the plot is alloted, then the question of registration of a society would arise. After the plot is allotted the petitioner would
register the society. It is the practice of the respondent to invite applications from the proposed society. Even today in their application forms on the
website, column is mentioned of proposed cooperative societies.
Mr. Shah, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent â€" MIDC in lucid manner put forth following propositions Â
[A] The petitioner claims to be a proposed cooperative society. The petitioner â€" society is not a registered society. The learned Senior Advocate
submits that an unregistered society cannot enter into a transaction of sell or lease. An unregistered cooperative society cannot enter into a
contract, as the same is not a legal entity and is not in existence unless and until its registration. The learned Senior Advocate relies on the judgment of
the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in a case of Laxminagar CoÂoperative Housing Society Vs. Mamlatdar and another reported in
(2005) 3 GLR 2083. The learned Senior Advocate further relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Ishwru Yatayat Cooperative Society
Vs. State Transport Appellate Authority reported in (1975) 2 SCC 685 and another judgment of the Division Bench of Gujrat High Court in a case of
Shri Ramji Mandir Narsinhji and others Vs. Narsinh Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Navsari and others reported in AIR 1979 Gujrat 134.
[B] This Court would not exercise its writ jurisdiction to enforce contractual obligations. It cannot be issued merely because it is lawful to do so.Â
The party is required to exhaust his remedy before the Civil Court. The learned Senior Advocate relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of
Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and another Vs. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation and another
reported in (2013) 5 SCC 470. No tender was issued. The allotment of land of plot for commercial purpose in industrial area has to be by public
auction, by giving due publicity and not by private negotiations, such an allotment is not countenance by law. The learned Senior Advocate relies on the
judgment of the Apex Court in a case of the City Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Platinum Entertainment and others reported in (2015) 1
SCC 558, so also, the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Bhubaneshwar Development Authority and another Vs. Adikand Biswal and others
reported in (2012) 11 SCC 731 and the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of ITC Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2011) 7
SCC 493. The judgment of the Division Bench in a case of Somnath
Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2016) 4 AIR Bom R 724. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1619 of 2011
dated 04.02.2014. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court in a case of Vikrant Industries Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others reported in
2014 (3) ALL MR 877.
[C] If the letter termed by the petitioner as an offer letter by the respondent is perused the said letter does not specify a particular plot. The location of
plot is also not specified. In view of that, the agreement is void as per Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The learned Senior Advocate
relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Nahar Singh Vs. Harnak Singh and others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 699.
[D] The learned Senior Advocate in alternate submits that even if the contention of the petitioner of existence of concluded contract is presumed, then
it is case of novatio of contract. The petitioner issued a letter to the respondent â€" MIDC after filing the first two writ petitions that the tenders
were issued but no proper response was received by the MIDC and as such the tender process was cancelled. In the said letter, the petitioner
specifically submitted that they are agreeable to receive the plot at a higher rate. Subsequently, the petitioner through their Advocate issued a notice
on 12.10.2007 stating that if the existence of the society is an impediment for allotment of plot, then they are ready to change their constitution and are
ready to convert it into the private limited company or the partnership firm and they are ready to file such an undertaking. The petitioner also
communicated that they are ready to receive plot in any other area.
Mr. Mantri, learned Advocate for respondent no. 7 purchaser of plot no. 20 â€" 21 in the auction that is made subject to the decision of the writ
petition submits that respondent no. 7 is an auction purchaser. Pursuant to the auction process conducted by the respondent â€" MIDC the petitioner
has purchased the plot bearing no. PÂ19 and PÂ21 and has paid consideration of Rs. 49,58,94,785/Â
The learned Advocate submits that there are other vacant plots at Shendra Five Star Industrial area. The petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for a huge
consideration amount. The learned Advocate submits that the offer letter of the respondent â€" MIDC relied by the petitioner shows that the said
offer is for allotment of plot for manufacturing purpose, meaning thereby that it is for industrial purpose and not for commercial purpose. The claim of
the petitioner for commercial plot, as such, is illegal. The learned Advocate adopts the arguments canvassed by the learned Senior Advocate for the
MIDC.
We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties.
It is undisputed that the petitioner â€" society is not a registered cooperative society and is merely a proposed cooperative society. A proposed
Cooperative society does not possess an independent legal identity. It is only after the cooperative society is registered it has a status of a body
corporate. All the privileges and rights enjoyed by the registered society cannot be availed of if the society is not registered. The cooperative society
cannot act beyond its bye laws / Constitution. We had asked the learned Advocate for the petitioner as to the bye laws of the proposed society. The
learned Advocate could not produce any bye laws of the society. The petitioner being a proposed society does not possess the legal right to maintain
the petition. In fact, if at all the petition was to be filed, the same was required to be filed through the members of the proposed society.
We had also asked the learned Advocate for the petitioner that whether the petitioner proposed society is now registered, the answer was in the
negative. The proposed society is not yet registered. Eighteen years after giving the application seeking allotment of plot the proposed cooperative
society is not yet registered. The Apex Court in a case of Ishwru Yatayat Cooperative Society Vs. State Transport Appellate Authority (supra) has
observed that the application filed by an unregistered society is an application on behalf of a non existent person. In the said case, the Apex Court held
that actions prior to coming into existence of a cooperative society before its registration is not maintainable, as it has no existence at that moment and
subsequent registration is immaterial. Section 4 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 provides societies which may be registered. The
Registrar has powers even to refuse registration under the circumstances detailed in proviso to Section 4 of the Registration Act, 1908. The contention
that after the letter of allotment is issued by the MIDC, then the petitioner would register its society does not stand to reason. There was no
impediment for the proposed society to get it registered in this eighteen years, if really they wanted to carry out business and preserve the economic
interest of its members.
The petitioner cooperative society on 10.07.2000 issued communication to the respondent â€" MIDC that they are going to establish the cooperative
society, and would get it registered, and they require a letter from the MIDC that the MIDC is contemplating allotting commercial plot to the proposed
society, and request was made to give such a letter so that they would register the society. After four years on or about 20.04.2004 respondent Â‐
MIDC communicated the petitioner that they have not submitted the project report. The petitioner was requested to submit the project report of
each member, the viability of the project and the necessary documents so that the application can be considered. Subsequently on 28.12.2005 letter
was issued by MIDC with the subject offer of land with various clauses, wherein it is reflected in the said letter that MIDC has decided to offer the
land admeasuring 26,000 Square Meters. On the date of issuance of offer letter the rate of premium of land applicable was Rs. 190 per Square
Meters. The petitioner was directed to enclose the Blue application duly complied in all respects with Demand Draft of Rs. 24,74,000/ towards
the earnest money. The offer letter however states that if the rates are revised by the Corporation before receipt of the application or communication
to the society of allotment in its favour, then premium at the revised rate shall be paid. It also has further provided that, if the plot alleged is facing the
National Highway, State Highway, then petitioner will have to pay 15% additional premium over and above the usual premium. It further states that, in
case the petitioner fails to accept the final allotment after it is communicated to it or pay the balance premium, the earnest amount would be forfeited.
The offer letter starts with allotting plot for manufacturing purpose. The petitioner issued Demand Draft of Rs. 24,74,000/Â and communicated to the
respondent  MIDC that as per the project report the required land area is 35,000 Square Meters. The respondent â€" MIDC was requested to
allot minimum 35,000 Square Meters land. In the Blue application filed by the petitioner, petitioner has asked for 35,000 Square Meters of the land.Â
The respondent â€" MIDC under its letter dated 23.05.2006 communicated that it has decided not to allot commercial plot to the cooperative society,
and as such, the offer letter is cancelled, the cheque / Demand Draft issued by the petitioner is returned back and the application of the petitioner
for allotment of plot is rejected. The petitioner thereafter on 25.05.2006 sought appointment with the Chief Executive Officer of MIDC for discussion
through its authorized representative. The letter of the petitioner â€" society dated 25.05.2006 was considered by MIDC and communicated to the
petitioner that it is not possible to allot the plot to the petitioner. The petitioner it appears filed writ petition bearing no. 5778 of 2006, the writ petition
was disposed of under order dated 04.07.2007 wherein the respondent agreed to consider the representation of the petitioner Annexure 'N' to the said
petition. Pursuant to the order of this Court the respondent MIDC communicated the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be allotted the commercial
plot at Shendra Five Star Industrial area. If the petitioner wants the plot at any other industrial area, the petitioner may apply and subject to availability
of the plots and as per the policy of the MIDC the decision would be taken regarding allotment of plot. Eventually the petitioner was not allotted the
plot though there was some internal communication between office of MIDC. The petitioner thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 6991 of 2008 for
allotment of plot.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondents proceeded to auction the plot. It was observed by the Court that auction may go on,
however, allottees be put on notice that their allotment would be subject to outcome of the writ petition. The writ petition was finally disposed of under
order dated September
10, 2013. This Court under order dated September 10, 2013 observed that in the first order passed on 27.11.2008 it has noted the readiness and
willingness of the petitioner â€" society to accept the allotment at any other site. This Court directed the respondents to apply their mind afresh to
Annexure 'A' of the petition and also readiness and willingness expressed by the petitioner and to take suitable decision within six weeks. The
respondent â€" MIDC, thereafter negatived the request of the petitioner under letter dated 21.10.2013, and thereafter the present writ petition is
filed.Â
There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that the offer may be accepted by conduct. In a case of Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar Vs.
Union of India (supra) relied by the learned Advocate for the petitioner the Apex Court observed thus Â
“It is wellÂsettled that an offer may be accepted by conduct. But conduct would only amount to acceptance if it is clear that the offeree did the
act with the intention (actual or apparent) of accepting the offer. The Courts must examine the evidence to find out whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case the conduct of the “offeree†was such as amounted to an unequivocal acceptance of the offer made. If the facts of
the case disclose that there was no reservation in signifying acceptance by conduct, it must follow that the offer has been accepted by conduct. On
the other hand if the evidence disclose that the “offeree†had reservation in accepting the offer, his conduct may not amount to acceptance of the
offer in terms of Section 8 of the Contract Act, 1872.
What, however, is significant is that the protest and nonÂacceptance must be conveyed before the cheques are encashed. If the cheques are
encashed without protest then it must be held that the offer stood unequivocally accepted. An 'offeree' cannot be permitted to change his mind after
the unequivocal acceptance of the offer.â€
The petitioner had given representation (Exhibit G, Page No. 34) thereby agitating that as they did not get any response they approached the
Hon'ble Industries Minister of the relevant time and the Hon'ble Industries Minister directed the concerned officers to proceed further. However
because of some of the officers the matter was kept pending and decision was taken to allot plots by auction. No response was received to the
auction. The auction process was cancelled. The petitioner categorically accepted that they are ready to pay the enhanced price after discussing with
the officers. The extract of the said letter is as under Â
“ vkEgh loZ lqf'kf{kr lHkkln ,d= ;sowu O;olk;hd Hkw[kaM miyC/krk deh vlY;keqGs lkeqnkf;dfjR;k lgdkjh lkslk;Vh LFkkiu d:u Hkw[kaMkph
ekx.kh dj.;kps Bjfoys] ijarq vkEgkl ek- vkS|ksfxd fodkl egkeaMG dk;kZy;kdMwu pkaxyk izfrlkn u feGkY;keqGs vkEgh m|ksxea=h ek-uk-
Jhv'kksdjkoth pOgk.k ;kaP;k fun'kZukl gh ckc vk.kwu R;k izdkjps fuosnu R;kaP;kdMs fnys] R;kauh gh ckc vlFksokbZdi.ks ekU; d:u laca/khr
vf/kdk&;kl dk;Zokgh dj.;kps vkns'k fnysizdj.k iw.kZRokdMs vlrkauk dkgh vf/kdk&;kP;k fu:Rlkghi.kkeqGs izdj.k izyafcr Bsowu ojhy Hkw[kaMkps
fufonsOnkjs okVi dj.;kps Bjfoyslnj fufoZnsyk tursdMwu dks.krkgh izfrlkn u feGkY;keqGs rh jÃŒ dj.;kr vkyh vk.kh vkeps izdj.k iqvkEgh ijr vkeps izdj.k dk;ZokghlkBh laca/khr vf/kdk&;kadMs fnys rlsp okvf/kdk&;kalkscr ppkZ d:u ekU; dsys-â€
The notice issued by the Advocate of the petitioner Society on 12.10.2007 refers to allotting plot at other place also. The same reads thus Â
“....
ojhy Bjko vkeP;koj ca/kudkjd ulrkauk n[skhy iqekU; dj.;kl r;kj vkgksr- QDr Hkq[kaM ;kiqohZP;k {ks=QGkapk loZlk/kkj.ki.ks ¼26000 pkS- ehVj½ vkoaVukrhy vlkok- rlsp dks.krsgh gjk'kh]
fcMhax v'kh O;oLFkk ulkoh-Â ;k i=k}kjs vkEgh vki.kkal iqu%'p fouarh djrks dh] vkeP;k lLaFksl mi;qDr o okVikl miyC/k vl.kk&;k ;ksX; R;k
Hkq[kaMkph ;knh o R;kaps nj miyVikyh vkEgkyk 10 fnolkP;k vkr dGfoY;kl vkEgkyk iq24]70]000@& ¼:- pksohl yk[k lRrj gtkj ek=½ vkiY;kdMs vkgsp- g;k f'kok; vkEgh v'khgh fouarh djrks dh tj vki.kkl lkslk;Vhyk 'ksanzk e/;s
Hkw[kaM ns.;kl vMp.khps ;sr vlsy rj vkEgh vkeP;kC onstitution e/;s cny dj.;kl r;kj vkgksr-Â tls izk-yh- fdaok Hkkxhnkjh lLaFkk vkf.k rls gehi=
vkEgh ns.;kl r;kj vkgksr tj egkeaMG vkEgkyk Hkq[kaM rkck i= nsr vlsy-Â rlsp egkeaMG ndskj i=kph jDde Hk:u ?ksrY;kuarj loZ lk/kkj.ki.ks rkck i=
ns.;kl fdrh dkyko/kh ?krss g;kph Ik.k ekghrh d`i;k |koh-â€
The aforesaid letter depicts that the petitioner was ready to accept any other plot. It was ready to constitute Private Limited Company or Partnership
Firm. In one of the letter also agreed to enhance the amount of consideration. All these facts show that contract was never finalised. Enforceable
contract did not come into existence.
Sections 15ÂH and 19ÂE of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 relied by the petitioner would not inure to the benefit of the petitioner. Sections 15ÂH
and 19ÂE of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that when the promoters of a company have, before its incorporation, entered into a contract for
the purpose of the company and such contract is warranted by the terms of the incorporation, the company may enforce the specific performance
of the contract. In the present case, there is nothing on record to remotely suggest that such a contract is warranted by the terms of the incorporation
of the petitioner proposed
cooperative society. In absence thereof, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Sections 15ÂH and 19ÂE of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 appears to be misplaced.
It would appear that there was no final allotment order in favour of the petitioner. Proceedings were at the nascent stage. No legal right was
crystallized in favour of the petitioner to seek allotment of a particular plot. The amount which was given by the petitioner along with its letter after
receiving the offer of the land was not encashed by the respondent. No firm allotment letter came into existence thereby notifying that a particular plot
is allotted to the petitioner viz. unregistered cooperative society. Legal right was not created in favour of the petitioner to claim specific performance
and or seek directions for allotment of a particular plot.
Though we are not inclined to grant relief to the petitioner however we do not appreciate the stand of the respondent â€" MIDC. On one hand it
contends that proposed cooperative society is not competent to enter into transaction and on the other hand the application forms issued by the MIDC
also shows proposed cooperative societies as an applicant. The respondent being an instrumentality of the State has to take one firm stand or it should
correct its application forms. We direct the respondents to take necessary care and caution while issuing application forms or inviting applications.
In the light of above, writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.