JUDGMENT KULDIP SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant is a Co-operative Housing Society known by the name of Kesherwani Co-operative Housing Society Limited (the Society ). On a representation made by the society, the Maharastra government by its order dated February 9, 1968 directed the Municipal commissioner of Greater Bombay to allow FSI (Floor Space Index) 2 in respect of the property in C. S. No. 590 of Malabar and Cumball Hill division. Bomi M. Mistry, respondent No. I in the appeal herein, challenged the order of the State Government by way of a writ petion before the Bombay high Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court by its judgment dated 11th/13th March,1970 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order allowing fsi 2 and the consequent sanction granted by the Municipal Commissioner. The appeal filed by the Society was dismissed by the Division Bench of the high Court by the order dated March 19, 1981. This appeal by way of Special leave is against the judgment of the learned single Judge as upheld by the division Bench. ( 2 ) WE have heard Dr. Singhvi. learned counsel for the Society. He has taken its through the judgment of the learned single Judge and various other documents on the record. The learned single Judge allowed the petition primarily on the ground that the Society did not place all the relevant material before the State Government and as such obtained the impugned order by committing fraud. ( 3 ) PRIOR to October 11, 1965, the permissible FSI was two. By the notification dated October 11. 1965. the FSI was reducd to 1. 33 The Society filed its building plans before the Bombay Municipal Corporation which were received in the Corporation office on February 17. 1966. It is thus obvious that the building plans of the Society after the Notification dated October 11, 1965 by which the permissible PSI was reduced from 2 to 1. 33. ( 4 ) ALTHOUGH we have heard Dr. Singhvi at length on the question as to whether there is any power with the Government to issue the order dated february 9, 1968 in relation of the Notification dated October 11, 1965 but it is not necessary for us to go into the said question. 33. ( 4 ) ALTHOUGH we have heard Dr. Singhvi at length on the question as to whether there is any power with the Government to issue the order dated february 9, 1968 in relation of the Notification dated October 11, 1965 but it is not necessary for us to go into the said question. As mentioned above the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition primarily on the ground that the appellant obtained the order from the State Government by way of fraud. The learned single Judge reached the said finding on the sole ground that a tripartite agreement dated March 21, 1967 was not brougth to the notice of the State Government. The relevant clause 1 of the said agreement is as under:"as the time of the execution of the hereinbefore recited Agreement for sale dated the 23rd day of July, 1966, the Party of the second part had represented to the party of the Third Part that the Building Index (FSI in respect of the said property more particularly described in the schedule hereunder written as 2. In spite of best efforts made by the parties hereto the said building Index (FSI) "2" is not available for constructing their building on site and the Building Index (FSI) at present available in respect of the said property is only 1. 33. It is, therefore, agreed by and between the parties hereto that the consideration of rupees 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lacs only) contained in the said hereinbefore recited Agreement for Sale dated 23rd day of July, 1966 and executed by and between the parties of the second Part and the Third Part hereto shall be reduced from rupees 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lacs only) to rupees 21,50,000/- (Rupees twenty one lac fifty thousand only.)" ( 5 ) THE learned single Judge of the High Court, by cogent reason, came to the conclusion that had the tripartite agreement brought to the notice of the State Government, it would not have granted the relaxation to the appellant society Before the High Court the State Government also took the stand that in the absence of tripartite agreement it was misled in passing the order permitting FSI 2 to the appellant-Society. It is no doubt correct that the learned single Judge has given a finding that the appellant played fraud on the Government, but we are of the view that the learned Judge was not justified in reaching the said conclusion. The Society, according to us, did not approach the State Government with clean hands. We, however, agree that the tripartite agreement was a relevant document and the appellant in all fairness should have placed the same before the Government. ( 6 ) WE see no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge as upheld by the Division Bench, The Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ( 7 ) IN case the Society submits its building plans on the basis of FSI 1. 33 before the Corporation, we have no doubt that the Corporation will consider the same in accordance with law expeditiously.