City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited vs CHERIAN PAPPACHAN

THE respondent had applied for a flat in New Bombay Scheme. In his application for allotment, he had filled up the column giving his option on the question as to whether he would be ready to purchase the flat against down payment in the negative.

THE petitioner had made a policy whereby those working in New Bombay were placed in the 1st category while those not working there but were willing to take the flat against down payment were placed in ''Second'' category and all others not concerned by the said two categories were placed in third category. The grievance of the petitioners is that by mistake the respondent was issued a letter by the petitioner conveying that he had been placed in Second category of the persons i.e., those who . were not living in New Bombay and were interested in taking the flat against down payment. As the respondent did not fall in that category, the error was corrected on being detected after examination of the application form wherein the respondent had ticked against the relevant column as under : "Are you ready to purchase the house on outright purchase basis ? (Put Mark) P Yes No

The respondent took the matter to District Forum alleging deficiency of service on the basis of the earlier letter issued by the petitioner. The District Forum passed ex parte orders in favour of the respondent. Against the said order, the petitioner went in appeal to the State Commission. The State Commission affirmed the order of the District Forum. At the hearing before us, the Counsel for the petitioners was required to produce the original application form in order to ascertain as to what was being alleged by the petitioner in Para ''e'' (quoted above) of the grounds was correct or not. The said form has been produced and we find that the assertion of the petitioners is correct and the said letter was issued by mistake. As a consequence of this, we are satisfied that the plea of the petitioners - CIDCO in their letter conveying that the respondent had fallen into category ''Second'' was issued by mistake and that the mistake was rightly corrected later. Mr. Ajit Bhasme, Counsel for the petitioners has also conveyed that the offer of an alternate flat in Panvel Scheme still stands and the respondent will be entitled to avail of that at the price charged from all the allottees in that Scheme at the time when the letter of allotment was issued.

IT appears that both the District Forum as well as the State Commission had fallen into error in not considering the aforesaid facts and which really disentitled the respondent to the allotment of flat in Second category for which he did not exercise the option in his application form itself. In that view of the matter, the impugned order as well as the one passed by the District Forum are hereby set aside. The petitioner shall, however, be bound by its offer made today that the respondent would be entitled to take the flat in Panvel Scheme at the rates at which the other allotees who were allotted and given the flats in 1996 i.e., the rates ruling at the time when the letter of allotment was issued to the complainants in 1996. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. The respondent must, however, exercise his option as to whether he wants to take the flat in Panvel Scheme on the above terms or not, within four weeks from today failing which it will be open to the Petitioner to allot the flat to anyone else. Petition disposed of.