Judgment H. L. GOKHALE, J. ( 1 ) THE Petitioner is a Registered Trust which has filed this Public interest Litigation in respect of the allotment of residential plots in Navi mumbai Municipal Area by Respondent No. 2 City and Industrial development Corporation. CIDCO is the Authority constituted by respondent No. 1 State of Maharashtra under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) for development of Navi mumbai amongst other townships. The Petitioner trust is created to promote respect for law and transparancy and accountability in governance amongst other objectives. It is founded and led by eminent citizens which include Mr. B. G. Deshmukh, former Cabinet Secretary, Mr. J. F. Rebeiro, former Director General of Police and Dr. R. K. Anand, an eminent physician with Jaslok Hospital. The principal submission of the petitioner trust is that although the relevant scheme of CIDCO is for the benefit of genuine housing societies, the plots thereunder are grabbed by builders in the name of fictitious societies. Prayer (a) of this petition therefore seeks to quash and set aside these allotments. The 1st respondent to the petition is State of Maharashtra through the Urban development Department. Respondent No. 3 is the Navi Mumbai municipal Corporation (NMMC ). Respondent No. 4 is the concerned builder and Respondents Nos. 5 to 9 are the concerned housing societies. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 - CIDCO grants plots in Navi Mumbai for construction and development under the MRTP Act read with the prevalent Development Control Regulations for Navi Mumbai, and City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (Lease of land To Co-operative Housing Society) Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter called "the Regulations") as amended in 1999. The applicability of the mrtp Act and the Regulations to the disputed allotments are admitted. The respective contentions of the parties are with respect to the interpretation of the Act, the Regulations, the resolutions passed by the board of Directors of CIDCO and their application and implementation in the instant case. ( 3 ) THE petition points out that the allotment of plots is done by cidco by either of the three methods:- (1) Public advertisements. (2) At a fixed price to Co-operative housing Societies. (3) On individual applications. It is their case that plots which are granted by public advertisements are to be granted upon tenders being invited in which the builders apply. (2) At a fixed price to Co-operative housing Societies. (3) On individual applications. It is their case that plots which are granted by public advertisements are to be granted upon tenders being invited in which the builders apply. Since the prices of those plots are regulated and governed by Market forces, they tend to be steep. The genuine Co-operative housing Societies which require plots for their members cannot compete with them. The Societies are therefore required to be granted plots at a fixed concessional rate. This grant of plots at a fixed rate or fixed price is therefore, meant to be given only to genuine and needy Co-operative housing Societies and therefore, necessarily only for residential purposes. This construction is permitted at Floor Space Index 1 (FSI 1 ). It is the case of the Petitioners that CIDCO sought to grant the concerned plots ostensibly to such needy and genuine Co-operative Housing societies. It therefore, sought to grant them at a fixed rate calculated by itself as the base price with specified enhancement thereon. However, upon such price being computed, ascertained and fixed, instead of granting those plots to genuine and needy Co-operative Housing societies, CIDCO allowed those plots to be frittered away to builders and developers who took them not upon any tender, but at the fixed price by floating , bogus and fake Co-operative Housing Societies consisting of their employees, nominees and friends instead. The Petitioners submit that thus on the one hand CIDCO deprived itself of the market rate of the plots which would have been determined by economies in the market, based upon the demand and supply principle, and on the other hand, the plots were cornered by builders who would make huge profits upon the development of the plots and consequently no genuine or needy Housing society could take or develop them at the price fixed mainly and only for them. Further they contend that though those plots were to be only for residential purposes with FSI 1, the builders who captured them took those plots for both commercial and residential purposes (C + R) in the sectors reserved for C + R though ostensibly in the names of Cooperative societies. The Builders accordingly sought to convert those plots partly for commercial use with FSI 1. The Builders accordingly sought to convert those plots partly for commercial use with FSI 1. 5 on the ground of they being in Sector c+r. ( 4 ) THE Petitioners case thus shows that there was a dual advantage and unjust enrichment for the builders and a corresponding disadvantage to CIDCO, the public sector undertaking and consequently to the citizens at large. Consequently the builders got a plot at the fixed rate meant for societies with FSI 1 and also availed the C+r development without subjecting themselves to the requirements of a tender meant for c+r plots to be given by public advertisements to builders. ( 5 ) THE Petitioners have shown this exercise by CIDCO under the aforesaid Regulations (which shall be referred to presently) based upon two resolutions of its Board of Directors Nos. 8848 and 8886 passed on 23rd October 2003 and 25th November 2003 respectively based upon their respective Agenda Notes which show the exercise of computing the fixed rate upon demand stated to have been received by CIDCO from various societies for residential purposes. The Agenda Notes and the 2 resolutions make interesting reading. The relevant resolutions of CIDCO governing the field: ( 6 ) THE Agenda Note for resolution number 8848 dated 23rd October 2003 shows that as per the Land Pricing and Disposal Policy of CIDCO the plots for Co-operative Housing Societies were to be allotted by one of the 3 aforesaid modes. The Agenda Note gives the justification for grant of plots at fixed rate as "tremendous demand" from Promoters of Cooperative housing Societies for allotment of plots to them without tender and at fixed rates in various nodes of Navi Mumbai. The Agenda Note sets out the proposal for CIDCO to offer plots for residential use at fixed rate to such societies. It further sets out that the market analysis done by cidco shows that those Societies found it impossible to get a plot through tender. Consequently, the Agenda Note shows that it was proposed to determine a fixed price at which the plots will be given out to co-operative Housing Societies. First, a base price is arrived at on the basis of the existing pricing policy and then there would be 40% enhancement of the base rate in the developed nodes. Consequently, the Agenda Note shows that it was proposed to determine a fixed price at which the plots will be given out to co-operative Housing Societies. First, a base price is arrived at on the basis of the existing pricing policy and then there would be 40% enhancement of the base rate in the developed nodes. (similarly there was to be 30% increase in the base rate for determining the fixed price in developing and new Nodes, but with which this Petition is directly not concerned. ). The Agenda therefore sets out a table showing the base price under CIDCOs existing pricing policy and the enhanced price at the above percentage. The table further shows the price concession that these plots will still get, in terms of percentage when compared to, the tender rate. This is the weighted average of such tender. Since market forces would determine the tender price, the concession received would therefore be lesser in the developed nodes and more in the developing or new nodes. ( 7 ) THOUGH the Petitioners have made a grievance about the number of plots and claimed reliefs for all such similarly placed plots in the petition, they have concentrated their criticism on one prime plot by way of an illustration. The plot specified by the Petitioner (the said plot) is not only in a developed node but in a prime locality of Navi Mumbai nicknamed "marine Drive of Navi Mumbai" by CIDCO. ( 8 ) THE said plot is in Nerul area of Navi Mumbai and is shown at serial No. 5 in the table which forms a part of the Agenda Note to the board Resolution No. 8848 of CIDCO. The base price as per the existing pricing policy of CIDCO for the said plot is shown to be Rs. 7188/- per square meter. The proposed increase in base price (enhanced by 40% being in the developed node) is shown to be Rs. 10063/ -. The weighted average of Tender rate is shown to be Rs. 10743/ -. Since this is a prime plot in a developed area analogous to Marine Drive of Mumbai, the actual tender rate would be therefore, far higher than the average of tender rate, the average having been derived for developing as well as developed plots together. 10063/ -. The weighted average of Tender rate is shown to be Rs. 10743/ -. Since this is a prime plot in a developed area analogous to Marine Drive of Mumbai, the actual tender rate would be therefore, far higher than the average of tender rate, the average having been derived for developing as well as developed plots together. It is the case of the Petitioners in para 14 of the Petition that the base price fixed was far below the prevailing market rate and that the prevailing market rate would be about Rs. 20,000/- per square meter instead. That would be near about the highest price of the plots to be developed in Navi Mumbai. Of course this rate would be when the plot is fully developed in that "developed node", Nerul. The Agenda shows that the lower rates were justified considering the fillip it would give to speedier development in Navi Mumbai and to enable genuine Housing Societies to take them instead of resorting to the practice of allotting plots to developers only. The laudable purpose of the policy, stated in the agenda is "in keeping with the National Policy to increase Housing Stock of individuals". ( 9 ) BASED upon that Agenda, CIDCO passed its resolution No. 8848 of 23rd October, 2003 which resolved that CIDCO approved the proposal to fix the rates for plots to be allotted to Co-operative Housing Societies with FSI 1 and purely for residential purposes without inviting tenders at a fixed rate as mentioned in column No. 5 of the table to the Agenda. It further passed the resolution that this policy was to be implemented only after verifying the genuineness of the Society. ( 10 ) THUS, four characteristic facts of the grant by CIDCO emerge from that resolution: (i) The grant would be only to genuine Co-operative housing Societies. (ii)It would be only for residential purpose. (iii)It would be without inviting tenders and instead at the fixed rate. (iv) It would be for FSI 1. ( 11 ) IT must be appreciated that fixed rates were therefore meant only for genuine Co-operative Housing Societies applying directly for the plots. It would be only for residential purposes and would have FSI 1. The other plots would be granted through tender. They would not be at the fixed rate since such rates would be dependent upon the market forces. It would be only for residential purposes and would have FSI 1. The other plots would be granted through tender. They would not be at the fixed rate since such rates would be dependent upon the market forces. Those plots would not be only for residential purposes they would be C+r. They would therefore enjoy not 1. 00 but 1. 5 FSI. The advantages of constructing C+r would be that it will attract 1. 5 FSI which would therefore necessarily get higher profit. It would therefore, fall within domain of the business of developers and would fetch CIDCO the gains of such development. The plots under CIDCOs new policy pursuant to resolution No. 8848 would derive comparatively lesser benefit for CIDCO in as much as the plots would be granted upon the fixed rate but they will be available for residential purpose only and to genuine housing societies alone. ( 12 ) THE case of the Petitioner is that these plots have been granted by CIDCO to Respondents 5 to 10 conferring the advantages of the policy upon those Respondents and at a disadvantage to CIDCO. However, though the price was fixed for the grant of the plots, ultimately what is seen is that they were given away not to genuine Co-operative housing Societies and not only for residential purpose for FSI 1, but to builders for C+r attracting FSI 1. 5 and without the stringency of a tender. ( 13 ) UNDER the further Agenda Note for a subsequent Board resolution No. 8886 of CIDCO passed on 25th November 2003, CIDCO sought to regulate the actual grants made to the Co-operative Housing societies for whom the earlier resolution was passed on 23rd October 2003. That Agenda again shows the object of the resolution to be of "enabling and assisting the needy and genuine Cooperative housing societies to acquire a plot only after verifying genuineness of the society, in Navi Mumbai". ( 14 ) THE above referred regulations specified the norms to verify the genuineness of such Societies. The Agenda provided the requirement of an affidavit (a truthful statement on oath) showing the continuous residence of 15 years of the applicant in Maharashtra State supported by documentary evidence such as ration card, passport, Domicile Certificate etc. of each member coupled with the certification in an affidavit that that member has no "other dwelling unit in Navi Mumbai". The Agenda provided the requirement of an affidavit (a truthful statement on oath) showing the continuous residence of 15 years of the applicant in Maharashtra State supported by documentary evidence such as ration card, passport, Domicile Certificate etc. of each member coupled with the certification in an affidavit that that member has no "other dwelling unit in Navi Mumbai". ( 15 ) THE Agenda further sets out the maximum extent of the area of the flat, the number of members of the society, the area of the plot and the conditions to regulate the change of members. Initially the number of members not allowed a change was 1/3 of the total members and the period of such restriction was 5 years as shown in the Agenda Note for the Board Resolution. In the resolution, 1/3 has plummeted to of the total number of members and the 5 year period in the Note has been decreased to 3 years from the date of allotment. ( 16 ) THE two resolutions read together show the Board of CIDCO having decided to allot residential plots with 1 FSI at fixed rate to genuine societies whose members would be verified by a statement on oath supported by documentary evidence to substantiate those statements, part of whom shall not transfer their memberships for a specified period. ( 17 ) IT may be mentioned that though the suit plot at Nerul found its ultimate place as a plot with a fixed price, about a year prior thereto, it was sought to be allotted by public advertisements which implied the allotment by tender. Such public advertisements were given in August- september, 2002 in 2 English and 2 Marathi News-papers. The advertisements of CIDCO show Navi Mumbais Marine Drive with a base price of Rs. 10,000/- per sq. mtr. The advertisements gave a "life time opportunity to top most builders of India". They published the names of authorities and the contact number and address of CIDCO. We are told that no offers were received by CIDCO consequent upon the said advertisements. The base price shows the minimum price below which cidco would not and could not have allotted the plot to any of the topmost builders of India. That same plot (the suit plot) has however been subsequently offered under the Board Resolution No. 8848 at the flat fixed rate of Rs. The base price shows the minimum price below which cidco would not and could not have allotted the plot to any of the topmost builders of India. That same plot (the suit plot) has however been subsequently offered under the Board Resolution No. 8848 at the flat fixed rate of Rs. 10063/- not to any of "the top most builders of India" but to "genuine Co-operative Housing Societies". ( 18 ) THE petition contends that although ostensibly CIDCO sought to target a separate market for allotment of interalia the suit plot, instead of the ultimate allotment to genuine societies, there has been a volteface as the suit plot came to be taken for development by one of the top most builders of India, Respondent No. 4 instead of any genuine Co-operative housing Societies. ( 19 ) THE Petitioners have drawn our attention to the website print out of Respondent No. 4 showing interalia that the suit plot is its premier residential construction annexed at Exhibit-F to the Petition. ( 20 ) ON paper however 6 Societies being Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 have applied for and been allotted one plot each at the fixed price from cidco. According to the Petitioners, these societies are not genuine housing societies. The applications of the disputed societies for allotment of land: ( 21 ) TO appreciate this submission, one will have to examine the documentary evidence of the offer by Respondents 5 to 10 and the acceptance by CIDCO constituting the contract of allotment between them. The documents containing the particulars of the members of these societies will also have to be seen to examine whether they fulfill the criteria laid down. This will enable us to examine the genuineness of these societies. ( 22 ) THESE documents have come to be referred and relied upon by the Petitioners in a further Affidavit filed by the Petitioners Trustees, consequent upon inspection of the documents taken by the Petitioners from CIDCO. CIDCO has produced the files containing the applications, affidavits and documents furnished by the members of these societies. ( 23 ) WHEN we look into these documents, what we find is that the letters of application titled "request for Allotment" by Respondents Nos. 5 to 9 Societies are computer print-outs. All the letters are undated. CIDCO has produced the files containing the applications, affidavits and documents furnished by the members of these societies. ( 23 ) WHEN we look into these documents, what we find is that the letters of application titled "request for Allotment" by Respondents Nos. 5 to 9 Societies are computer print-outs. All the letters are undated. All of them are addressed to the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra Shri sushilkumar Shinde and not to CIDCO which as a statutory Corporation, is a separate competent legal entity. Each of them bears the endorsement of the Chief Minister "please put up" dated 21st February 2004. Each of them has been received by the Registered Office of CIDCO at Nirmal Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai on 24th February 2004 and in the Commercial Section of CIDCO at Navi Mumbai on 25th February 2004. The 2 stamps of these Offices bear 5 different running inward numbers. The inward numbers of the stamp of the CIDCO Office at Nirmal are 15 onwards marked "c. M. ". The endorsement of the then Managing Director of CIDCO Shri V. M. Lal "please process early" is made on 24th February 2004 itself, before the letters are moved to the Commercial Section at navi Mumbai. A further endorcement also dated 24th February 2004 on the top of these letters shows them serially numbered from No. 30 onwards and bearing the endorcement "vvip". After these, three identical endorcements have been made by the Commercial Section of cidco at Navi Mumbai under separate inward numbers commencing from No. 3768 on 25th February 2004. ( 24 ) SURPRISINGLY, the copies of letters produced by Respondent no. 6 (the lead society) on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 in Court show that they were received by CIDCO on 26th February 2004 after all such action was already taken. ( 25 ) THOUGH the names of the Societies and their addresses are different, none of the letters bear any telephone number of the Society as also the date. The font of the letter-head in the printout are similar for 4 societies. The subject of the letter is identical except for the Sub-Division of the plot mentioned therein. All the letters show Plot No. 24 in the print out. (Indeed the Development Plan of CIDCO dated 9th January 2004 which is C+r shows the said plot bearing No. 24! ). The subject of the letter is identical except for the Sub-Division of the plot mentioned therein. All the letters show Plot No. 24 in the print out. (Indeed the Development Plan of CIDCO dated 9th January 2004 which is C+r shows the said plot bearing No. 24! ). They further show handwritten subplots A to E. Hence at the time of the application itself the specific sub-plot to be allotted is specified by the author of the letter who is the Chief Promoter of that Society. The contents of each of these letters is identical. Their addresses are from different parts of the city. Thus, "sealinks" address is Matunga, Mumbai-19, Sagarikas - Ambedkar road, Mumbai-14; Ameys Manektala Estate, Mumbai-86 and others from Vashi. It is seen that Co-operative Housing Societies stated to be having different names and different addresses in far off areas have all sought to apply for allotment by writing identical letters on the same day not to CIDCO but to the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra. For some unknown reason all these letters are directed to be put up and processed early on the date they were received and marked "vvip". ( 26 ) THE applications show no annexures. In fact the contents of the letters show that the annexures had been earlier or separately submitted. Copies of any such annexures, not being with the letters, they were not even offered for inspection by CIDCO to the Petitioners representatives. ( 27 ) THE application of Respondent No. 10 has been made separately. It is also undated. It is received initially on 5th April 2004 and bears endorcement of the Chief Minister dated 5th April 2004 "please process and Pass by 12 th April 2004". It is received by the Nirmal building of CIDCO on 6th April 2004 under No. 42 CM. It bears the further stamp of VVIP, No. 75 against the date 8th April 2004. The endorcement of then Managing Director of CIDCO was made on 12th April 2004. It is received by the Nirmal building of CIDCO on 6th April 2004 under No. 42 CM. It bears the further stamp of VVIP, No. 75 against the date 8th April 2004. The endorcement of then Managing Director of CIDCO was made on 12th April 2004. ( 28 ) THE note of the Marketing Manager dated 16th March 2004 with regard to each of these letters is identically made for each of these applications showing that the applications were received along with enclosures which were duly certified and that the Societies have fulfilled all the terms and conditions with regard to the number of members and the extent of the area of the plot and the flats. Neither the then Chief minister nor the Marketing Manager nor the Managing Director of CIDCO are seen to have made any query in spite of this astonishing similarity of approach of these six societies coming from different parts of thecity. Strangely enough, their response to these identical applications is also astonishingly identical. Documents in support tendered by members and total absence of scrutiny: ( 29 ) CIDCO claims to have scrutinised and verified the applications of these Respondents. Upon our query CIDCO has produced 6 files containing the documents of all the members of the 6 Societies. A cursory look at these files has revealed not only that CIDCO has not scrutinised or verified the documents, but that when seen, those documents go against the basic elementary requirements for application by members as per the Regulations and shown in the Agenda to the board Resolution in terms of which resolution No. 8886 came to be passed by the CIDCO on 25th November 2003. ( 30 ) IT would be essential to enumerate some of the salient features of those documents. It may be remembered that these documents were required as per the Agenda to the aforesaid Board Resolution in support of the affidavits to be made by the members that they lived in Maharashtra for 15 years and that they do not have another dwelling unit in Navi mumbai. In support of that statement on oath the documents of the members are produced by them, supposedly scrutinised by CIDCO and have been appreciated by us. ( 31 ) MOST of the members have annexed photocopies of their ration-cards, many of which are unreadable. In support of that statement on oath the documents of the members are produced by them, supposedly scrutinised by CIDCO and have been appreciated by us. ( 31 ) MOST of the members have annexed photocopies of their ration-cards, many of which are unreadable. The ration-cards are issued in many of the cases after the year 2000. They show the address of many of the members to be at or near Durgamata Mandir or Shiv Mandir or at turbe Stores in Navi Mumbai. Incidentally several of these addresses are in Navi Mumbai itself. The dwelling unit shown in ration-card is therefore in navi Mumbai itself. The affidavits of those members making a statement on oath that they have no dwelling unit in Navi Mumbai is contradicted by their own documents. Aside from the ration-card no other document showing the residence at any other place in Maharashtra prior to the date of the issue of ration-card is produced. The statement on oath relating to continuous stay of 15 years in Maharashtra is therefore not supported by most of the members by documentary evidence as required by the regulations and specified in the Agenda Note. Almost no member has produced or annexed his Passport. Many of the applications are bearing thumb impressions. Most of the members have annual income of their entire family of about Rs. 20,000/ -. Several of the addresses are in chawls or hutment colonies in the far suburbs of Mumbai. These are the persons who are shown to be members of the aforesaid 6 societies who applied through their Chief Promoter. They have applied for development of the plot on which a building has to be constructed in the area suitably nicknamed Navi Mumbais Marine Drive. These members are shown eligible to obtain a flat admeasuring about 1000 sq. ft in a sky-scraper to be constructed on the plot allotted by CIDCO with amenities like jogging track, golf course, terrace garden, swimming pool, complete with an amphitheater. This is on the backdrop that the cost of each flat is not expected to be less than Rs. 25 lakhs. ( 32 ) THUS, as an illustration, if we see the file of Respondent No. 5 sea Queen Society, first there is an undated letter on its letterhead having its address at 1/3 Vishwas, L. T. Road, Bombay-92. This is on the backdrop that the cost of each flat is not expected to be less than Rs. 25 lakhs. ( 32 ) THUS, as an illustration, if we see the file of Respondent No. 5 sea Queen Society, first there is an undated letter on its letterhead having its address at 1/3 Vishwas, L. T. Road, Bombay-92. It is addressed to Shri sushil Kumar Shinde, Chief Minister of Maharashtra asking for allotment of Plot No. 24b, Sector 4 at Nerul. It is signed by one Mansukhlal Nagji gangar in Gujarati. Then there is a sketch plan from CIDCOs Planning department showing the residential plots in Sector 4 and 6, Nerul. Thereafter appears on one page an extract of two resolutions supposed to be passed by the Extraordinary General Meeting of this Society at Navi mumbai on 20th January 2004. It records that Mansukhlal Nagji is elected as the Chief Promoter and then he is authorised to do the needful in the matter of allotment of plot, execution of agreement, opening of bank account, etc. The first resolution is proposed by M. R. Satra and seconded by A. P. Bheda. The second resolution is proposed by J. V. Satra and seconded by N. G. Gala. At the bottom appears a signature of Mansukhlal nagji to certify it as the true extract. ( 33 ) THEN there is a list of members containing 51 names beginning with Gangar Mansukhlal Nagji and ending with MyathaShila Samuel. Thereafter appears applications of each of these members with their attested photographs. The application has 7 columns. 1. Members full name 2. Name of the society 3. Members residential address 4. Members age 5. Whether he or his family member owns any apartment/plot in Navi mumbai 6. If so, details of it 7. Whether staying in Maharashtra for 15 years. This application is followed by a photocopy of an extract of his ration card and an affidavit, amongst others showing his income. This last affidavit is made by hardly anybody. ( 34 ) NOW, from this list of 51 of Respondent No. 5 Sea Queen society, if we check the first 26, i. e. more than 50% of the applicants, the