MUNDAKKAYAM SADASIVAN Vs. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a public interest litigation filed under Art, 226 of the Constitution challenging the sale of plot No. 2 adjacent to the Taj Hotel in the Cochin Marine Drive Scheme in favour of the third respondent. It is alleged that the allotment in favour of this respondent is arbitrary and that the Greater Cochin Development Authority (for short 'GCDA') and the State Government have sacrificed public interest in selling the land to this respondent at a ridiculously low price. Facts giving rise to this petition may first be noticed.

(2.) GCDA had set apart plot No. 2 measuring 59.285 cents of land for the construction of multi storeyed residential flats in the Cochin Marine Drive Scheme. Tenders were invited in the year 1995 for the sale of this plot and one M/s. Prakrithi Nlrman (P) Ltd. a Bangalore based Company amongst others submitted its tender for the purpose of the plot at the rate of Rs. 19.01 lacs per cent. As this was the highest bid, the tender of this Company was accepted and the allotment was made to it. On 14-12-1995, this Company remitted 50% of the purchase price amounting to Rs. 5, 63, 51, 000/- in compliance with the conditions contained in the tender. A public interest litigation (O.P. No. 18097 of 1995 was filed in this Court challenging the allotment. This Court stayed all constructions at Marine Drive on the ground that the proposed constructions were likely to violate the provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone Laws. On 29-10-1997, this original petition was disposed of without interfering with the tenders floated by GCDA. By this time, M/s. Prakrithi Nlrman (P) Ltd. wanted to back out from the tender which was not acceptable to GCDA. Aggrieved by this action, the Company filed O.P. No. 31533 of 1999 in this Court seeking a direction to GCDA to refund the entire amount paid by it with interest at the rate of 21%. This writ petition was disposed of on 16-2-2000 with a direction to the GCDA to refund the amount to the Company after forfeiting the earnest money deposit. The Judgment of the learned single Judge was affirmed in writ appeal and GCDA has preferred a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court being S.L.P. No. 4489 of 2003 and we are informed that the same is pending.

(3.) In order to mobilize funds for the discharge of its financial obligations, the GCDA decided to sell all its properties lying in excess with a view to raise funds.