Oral Judgment [V.M. Kanade, J.] 1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final hearing. 2. The PIL has been filed by an Association and the writ petition also is filed by a person, who claims to be a social worker. Both the Petitioners are challenging the consent terms which were filed before the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3104 of 2013 as well as the minutes of order which were filed in the said consent terms. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Unit Trust of India (for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in WP No.3 of 2013 and for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in PIL No. 27 of 2013) regarding maintainability of the petitions. It is submitted that by these petitions, the Petitioners are challenging the order, which was passed by this Court in a writ petition, which was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in PIL No. 27 of 2013 submitted that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and another, Petitioners v. State of Maharashtra and others, Respondents [AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1673], in the event, an order is obtained by the parties collusively and fraudulently from the High Court, such an order should be challenged in a writ petition by the third party, who was not a party to the said proceeding by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.4 is an Administrator of Unit Trust of India and Respondent No.2 is The Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (for short “MHADA”), which is a Body Corporate constituted under the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act, 1976. A plot of land, situated at Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai, was given on lease by Respondent No.2 to the Unit Trust of India by allotment letter dated 7.7.1987. By the said letter, an area admeasuring approximately 10503 sq.mtrs. was given to UTI for the purpose of constructing residential tenements for their employees on payment of premium at the rate of Rs.1,050/- per sq.meter plus annual lease rent @ 1% on premium. By the said letter, an area admeasuring approximately 10503 sq.mtrs. was given to UTI for the purpose of constructing residential tenements for their employees on payment of premium at the rate of Rs.1,050/- per sq.meter plus annual lease rent @ 1% on premium. The said land was given for the purpose of enabling Respondent No.4 to form a co-operative housing society and the UTI was asked to furnish a list of employees / members of the co-operative society. A representation was made by the UTI to MHADA for increasing FSI and seeking other permissions. Subsequently, MHADA Authorities by their order dated 14.11.2002, was pleased to cancel the said allotment and directed the UTI to hand over the vacant plot within 15 days from the date of the said order. The UTI had challenged the said cancellation of allotment by filing a writ petition in this Court vide Writ Petition No. 3104 of 2002. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed by this Court and the MHADA as well as the State Government was directed not to allot the said land to any other person. The writ petition came up for hearing before the Learned Single Judge of this Court, who was taking up the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the said writ petition, two Chamber Summons were filed by the two persons, in which it was alleged that any decision taken in the said petition, would adversely affect on their interest. During the pendency of the petition, the UTI, MHADA Authorities and the State Government settled the dispute and it was agreed that the MHADA Authorities would permit the UTI to allot the land to their employees after they formed the co-operative society and that Respondent No.4, in turn, would return approximately 2000 sq.mtrs. of land to the MHADA Authorities, free of costs, even though they had paid the entire consideration for the building in 1987 itself, and the remaining plot, with the help of a developer, would be developed and the employees of UTI would be given flats admeasuring 650 sq.mtrs., free of costs, and in lieu of that the developer would be entitled to sell the commercial premises in the said building. The State of Maharashtra also granted its consent to the said proposal and, accordingly, the minutes of order were prepared and tendered before the Court and the Court was pleased to pass a detailed order dated 26th April, 2010 in terms of the minutes of order. The Tripartite Agreement, executed between the parties, was annexed to the said consent terms. The Petitioner in this Petition had initially, challenged the said order by filing a petition in this Court. However, later on he withdrew the said petition and liberty was granted to him to file a fresh petition. A PIL was also filed by Nirnay Welfare Association, challenging the consent terms which were filed before the Learned Single Judge. 5. Both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners have made similar submissions. It was firstly contended that a collusive order was obtained by the MHADA and the UTI and a fraud has been played on the Court. It is submitted that Regulation 8D permits the allotment of land either for slum rehabilitation or in public interest. It was submitted that in the present case, admittedly, there was no question of slum redevelopment and the land was also not allotted in the public interest. It was submitted that the normal procedure which was required to be followed viz. issuing public advertisement, was not followed in the present case and, therefore, the said allotment was illegal and collusive. It was then contended that even so far as State Government is concerned, an opinion of the Advocate for the State Government was not obtained and after following the said procedure, the State Government has given its no objection to the allotment of the said land for the employees of the UTI. It was contended that initial allotment of 1987 was made only for the purpose of construction of staff quarters for the employees of the UTI and now the said allotment was made to the employees of the UTI by forming a co-operative society. 6. Our attention is invited to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and another (supra.) and to the various paragraphs of the said judgment and it was contended that this Court, therefore, has jurisdiction and authority to consider the order passed by the Learned Single Judge. 7. 6. Our attention is invited to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and another (supra.) and to the various paragraphs of the said judgment and it was contended that this Court, therefore, has jurisdiction and authority to consider the order passed by the Learned Single Judge. 7. On the other hand, Shri Dada, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the UTI submitted that both the Petitioners would not have any public interest and were busy bodies, who had filed these petitions and were setting up by those peoples who had initially filed the Chamber Summons before the Learned Single Judge and who had not succeeded in the intervention application filed before the Learned Single Judge. It was submitted that the land was initially allotted in the year 1987 and the entire payment of lease rent along with premium was made by the UTI. He submitted that the allotment was made for the benefit of the employees of the UTI, which was evident from the various clauses of the said allotment letter. It was submitted that the matter was pending since 2002 and ultimately the parties had arrived at a settlement which was approved at all the levels and, thereafter, the consent terms were filed. It was submitted that the bald allegations were made in the petition and no specific plea has been raised regarding the alleged fraud committed by any individual or individuals. It was submitted that this contention of the Petitioners, therefore, is devoid of any merits. 8. Shri Sawant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the MHADA -Respondent No.2 submitted that after the allotment of land was cancelled in 2002, the petition remained pending for almost last 10 years and when settlement talks began, the MHADA Authorities also took into consideration the fact that they did not have a good case to justify the cancellation of allotment. It was then submitted that the contention of the Petitioners that such an allotment would not have been made, was not correct. It is submitted that under Regulation 6, it was open for the MHADA Authorities to consider the application made by the statutory authorities. It was then submitted that the contention of the Petitioners that such an allotment would not have been made, was not correct. It is submitted that under Regulation 6, it was open for the MHADA Authorities to consider the application made by the statutory authorities. It was submitted that in this case it could not be said that the allotment was not in public interest; particularly because, the UTI was 100% owned Government Undertaking when the land was allotted to them and as such, the MHADA Authorities could consider an application for allotment of land of the employees of such Undertaking. He also submitted that the ratio of the judgment, on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, would not apply to the facts of the present case. He submitted that in the said case, the persons who had allegedly committed fraud and, the factual data was provided as to how this fraud was committed by these two individuals, had acted at the behest of the chairman. It was, therefore, submitted that the petition was liable to be dismissed with costs. 9. After having heard the learned counsel at length, in our view, this is not a fit case where this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction can set aside the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and another (supra.). It is not in dispute that the land was allotted to the UTI (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in PIL No.27 of 2013) in 1987 after the full lease amount was paid by UTI to MHADA. There was some dispute between the parties thereafter regarding the purpose for which the allotment was made and finally in 2002, the MHADA had cancelled the allotment. The UTI Authorities had promptly challenged the said order by filing writ petition in 2002 itself and in this petition, an interim protection was granted to the Petitioner. It, therefore, cannot be said that the MHADA Authorities have at the first time made an allotment to the employees of the UTI by not following the procedure laid down under Regulation 8D or there is a violation of Regulation 8D. It would be relevant, therefore, to take into consideration the relevant clauses and the allotment which was made. 10. It, therefore, cannot be said that the MHADA Authorities have at the first time made an allotment to the employees of the UTI by not following the procedure laid down under Regulation 8D or there is a violation of Regulation 8D. It would be relevant, therefore, to take into consideration the relevant clauses and the allotment which was made. 10. The letter of allotment reveals that the land was leased out to the Unit Trust of India for the purpose of constructing residential tenements for their employees on payment of premium of Rs.1,050.00 per square meter plus annual lease rent at 1% on premium. The said letter in terms mentions as under: “The land proposed to be allotted to you is in the form of Co-operative Housing Society's plot bearing Nos. H 25 and H-25A to H-32 (Plan enclosed).” Similarly, in Clause (B), the eligibility criteria has been mentioned which reads as under: “i. The Unit Trust of India shall furnish the list of the employees members of Co-operative Housing Society alongwith a certificate from he employer.” Similarly, in Clauses D (i) and (iii), the General Terms and Conditions have been mentioned, read as under: “i. The land shall be utilized for the purpose of Housing the employees of Unit Trust of India by way of forming the Co-operative Housing Society. iii. The Unit Trust of India shall furnish true copy of the registration certificate issued to the organization by the Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society.” 11. Perusal of the impugned order, does not disclose anywhere that the intention of the MHADA was to allot the land to the UTI for the purpose of construction of staff quarters as alleged by the MHADA. The Learned Single Judge after scrutiny of the consent minutes of order, passed an order in terms of the minutes of order. 12. The Division Bench of this Court on 14th of October, 2013 was pleased to pass the following order: “To be placed on board for admission on 25.10.2013. the pendency of this public interest litigation will not preclude the petitioner from adopting any other proceedings in respect of the subject matter thereof, including making the application before the learned single Judge, who passed the order and judgment dated 26.04.2010. the pendency of this public interest litigation will not preclude the petitioner from adopting any other proceedings in respect of the subject matter thereof, including making the application before the learned single Judge, who passed the order and judgment dated 26.04.2010. Nor will the pendency of this public interest litigation preclude any other Court, Tribunal or Authority from considering such application, if made.” Despite this order, the Petitioner in the PIL did not approach the Learned Single Judge by pointing out the allegations which are now made in this petition. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.3 of 2013, however, claims to have made a representation to the MHADA Authorities, he also did not approach the Learned Single Judge, pointing out that the fraud has been committed on the Court. Instead of that, both have chosen to file the petitions before the Division Bench of this Court. There are no pleadings in the petitions regarding the alleged fraud or the persons who committed the said fraud and a bald averment is made in the petition without giving any particulars whatsoever. 13. In our view, even the judgment on which the reliance has been placed by both the Petitioners in the case of Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and another (supra.) would not apply to the facts of the present case. In the said case, a specific averment has been made by the Petitioner in the petition regarding the alleged fraud which was committed by two persons who were put by him and in this context, therefore, the Court came to the conclusion that the Ex-Chairman A.K. Patil had set up More, a co-director and Mule, alleged to be concerned to file the petition and fraudulently obtained a consent order. In the present case as allegedly pointed out by Shri Sawant, appearing on behalf of the MHADA Authorities, no specific allegation has been made against any individual and it is a settled position in law that fraud cannot be alleged against an institution such as MHADA or UTI or the State of Maharashtra. 14. Taking into consideration all these facts of the case, we are not inclined while exercising our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed by the Learned Single Judge. Hence, both the writ petitions are dismissed.