Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Goa vs M/S. Jps Realtors Pvt. Ltd on 6 March, 2025
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3637-3639/2025
(@Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.3294-3296/2023
THE STATE OF GOA & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S. JPS REALTORS PVT. LTD. & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Since the issues raised in all the captioned appeals are same and the challenge is also to the self same judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and order.
3. These Appeals arise from the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa dated 30-1-2023 in Writ Petition Nos.450/2022, 451/2022 and 452/2022 respectively, by which all the Writ Petitions filed by the private respondents-herein came to be allowed directing the appellants – herein to act in furtherance of the sale letter dated 29-3-2022 with a further direction to hand-
over the physical possession of the three plots in question to the original writ petitioners (Private respondents - herein) within two weeks from the date of the pronouncement of the Judgment.
4. We borrow the facts giving rise to these appeals from the Signature Not Verified impugned judgment itself.
Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2025.03.20 18:17:51 IST Reason:5. We quote the relevant paragraphs:-
4. The Goa Housing Board (GHB) is constituted under the Goa Housing Board Act, 1968 (GHB Act). After complying 2 with all legal procedures, including obtaining prior approval from the Government, GHB auctioned plots 'G', 'H' and 'I' at Porvorim on 14.12.2021. The petitioners were adjudged highest bidders after they bid 71,000/- per square metre, 37,500/- per square metre and ¥36,000/- per square metre as against the minimum reserved price of ₹35,000/- per square metre. The GHB accepted the bids and even issued sale letters as contemplated by the Goa Housing Board (Registration, Allotment and Sale of Plots) Rules, 2016 (said Rules). The petitioners paid the entire consideration amount of over 54.47 crores to GHB, which was duly received and even spent by GHB towards payment of salaries, pensionary benefits, etc., of its employees.
After the entire process was practically complete, based upon purported directives of the Government, the GHB revoked/cancelled the allotment/sale of plots to the petitioners. However, there was neither minimum compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair play nor an offer to refund the amounts received and appropriated by GHB. Therefore, these petitions challenge the purported Government directions and the consequential GHB's action by treating the so-called Government directions as binding upon itself.
5. To be precise, the petitioners, by instituting these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenge the following:
(i) Communication no.2/38/202 10/HSB dated 07.06.2022 by which the Section Officer (Housing) forwarded file notings by styling the same as "decision taken by the Government" for information and necessary action by the Managing Director of GHB;
(ii) The decision of the GHB revoking/cancelling Sale Letter in respect of plot numbers 'G', 'H' & 'T' at Porvorim as contained in the Minutes of the 504th meeting held on 15.06.2022;
(iii) Communication dated 12.07.2022 issued by the Managing Director, GHB informing the petitioners of such cancellation; and
(iv) The email communication dated 29.03.2022 (sent at 4.52 pm) by Assistant Engineer, GHB, purporting to withdraw the Sale Letter dated 29.03.2022 issued by Managing Director, GHB at 2.21 pm.
6. Mr Dewani and Mr Lawande, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that there is no Government decision or direction consistent with the constitutional scheme or the provisions of the GHB Act. In any case, they submit that the decision-making process is vitiated by illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. They 3 submit that the impugned decisions are unreasonable, irrational and illogical. They submit that vital considerations have been ignored and irrelevant considerations have influenced the decision. They submit that GHB has acted under dictation without independent application of mind. They submit that Assistant Engineer's email dated 29.03.2022 is ultra vires. They submit that the impugned actions grossly violate principles of natural justice and legitimate expectations. They submit that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is also attracted in this matter. For all these reasons, they submit these petitions be allowed and the sale/allotment of the three plots restored to the petitioners.
7. Mr Dewani and Mr Lawande submitted that Mr Rohan Khaunte's objection based on alleged congestion commercialisation was considered and rejected when Mr Khaunte was in the opposition. However, after Mr Khaunte joined the State cabinet, his objections suddenly became one of the grounds for the so-called Government directions. They pointed out the irrationality and contradictions in the decision and the gross procedural improprieties in the decision-making process. Mr Dewani and Mr Lawande relied upon several decisions which would be considered in the course of this judgement and order.
8. Mr A D Bhobe, learned Counsel for GHB, consistent with the affidavit filed on behalf of GHB, asserted that the entire auction process culminating in the acceptance of petitioners' bids was perfectly legal and following the said GHB Act and the said rules. He submitted that necessary approvals were obtained from the Government for this process. He, however, submitted that Government's directions bind the GHB; therefore, GHB had no option but to revoke/cancel the allotment/sale of the three plots to the petitioners.
9. Mr Bhobe also made it clear that he was not defending the Assistant Engineer's email dated 29.03.2022 sent at 4.52 pm purporting to withdraw the Sale Letter digitally signed by the M.D., GHB about 2 hours earlier. Accordingly, he accepted that there was no legal explanation in support of the Assistant Engineer's email dated 29.03.2022.
10. The learned Advocate General vehemently defended the State Government's decision as reflected on the notings annexed to the communication dated 07.06.2022 addressed by the Section Officer (Housing) to the Managing Director, GHB.
11. The learned Advocate General submitted that the State 4 Government's decision was in the public interest after considering the views of the Minister (Transport) and Minister (Housing). He offered that the Minister (Housing) had opined that plot 'G' had fetched the rate of 71,000/- per square meter and, therefore, plots 'H' and 'I' which had fetched the rate of only 37,500/- and 36,000/- should be re-auctioned, if necessary, after increasing the FAR. He submitted that the Minister (Transport) had opined that using the auctioned plots for commercial purposes would lead to traffic congestion at Porvorim. The learned Advocate General submitted that the State Government directed the GHB to cancel the allotments so that the commercial plots could be retained as open spaces. The learned Advocate General submitted that since there was no direction for re-auction, the presumption is that the State intended that the auctioned plots should be retained as open spaces. Therefore, he submitted that public interest is involved and the directions are in furtherance of public interest.
12. The learned Advocate General submitted that the impugned directions were issued under Section 51 of the GHB Act and, in any case, are relatable to Section 124 of the GHB Act. He submitted that even otherwise, since the auction process has to begin with the approval of the State Government, the State Government has inherent rights or rights under the General Clauses Act to revoke or direct the revocation of allotment of plots in a public auction. He submitted that since public interest is involved, no case is made to interfere with the impugned decision/direction. He relied on Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr. V/s. G.S. Investments & Anr.¹ and State of U.P. & Ors. V/s. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh & Ors.
13. The learned Advocate General submitted that executive decisions need not contain elaborate reasons because they are not orders made by judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. He offered that the notings indicate application of mind, and the ultimate decision has to be construed based upon the notings that precede the same. He submits that, thus construed, there is no arbitrariness or illegality involved in the impugned directions.
14. The learned Advocate General submitted there are no pleadings to support the argument based on promissory estoppel. He submitted that none of the petitioners had altered their position based on the Sale Letters or allotment letters. He submitted that mere payment of the total consideration, even after obtaining loans, does not change the Petitioners' position and entitles them to invoke the promissory estoppel doctrine. He submitted that the State Government, in any case, had held out no representations to the petitioners. For the same reason, he proposed that even the doctrine of legitimate expectation is not applicable. The learned Advocate General submitted that though there was no direction to 5 refund the amounts paid by the petitioners, that is a matter which is too obvious to be stated. He offered that this is something that goes without saying. But he pointed out that since the petitioners have not claimed any refund, there was no question of grant of any such refund in these petitions. 15. For all the above reasons, the learned Advocate General submitted that these petitions may be dismissed. 16. Mr Kantak learned Senior Advocate for the intervenors submitted that there is traffic congestion at Porvorim. If any commercial projects are allowed on the auctioned plots, then such congestion would only increase. Therefore, he submitted that the decision of the State Government is in the public interest. 17. Mr Kantak pointed out that the residents from the locality, which include the intervenors, were assured by the former Chief Minister that these plots would be retained as open spaces. He submitted that their MLA of Porvorim, Mr Rohan Khaunte, had also objected to the auction. He submitted that Mr Rohan Khaunte is now the Minister (Transport) and, therefore, concerned with the congestion issue at Porvorim. Mr Kantak relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Resident's Welfare Association & Anr. V/s. The Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors. to highlight the importance of environmental impact assessment in the planning process.
Based on all this, Mr Kantak submitted that these petitions mayt be dismissed.”
6. Thus, it appears from the above that in somewhere near Porvorim, State of Goa there are three plots owned by the Goa Housing Board admeasuring 11000 sq.mts. These three plots were put to public auction by the Goa Housing Board. The Plot No. `G’ admeasures 4185 sq. metres, the Plot No. `H’ admeasures 3315.50 sq. metres and the Plot No. `I’ admeasures 3424.50 sq.metres) respectively. All these three plots are situated in Survey No. 129/1-A of Village Penha-De-Franca in Porvorim. It is not in dispute that these plots are owned by Goa Housing Board – Respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein respectively.
67. The State of Goa permitted the Goa Housing Board to put the three plots, referred to above, to auction. Accordingly, e-auction was conducted on 14-12-2021. The original writ petitioners before the High Court namely M/s JPS Realtors Pvt. Ltd, M/s A.V. Estates Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Veera Promenade Pvt. Ltd. respectively participated in the e-auction and were declared as the highest bidders for the plots I, H and G respectively, referred to above.
8. The successful bidders i.e. the three writ petitioners, referred to above, conveyed their acceptance and deposited the requisite amount with the Goa Housing Board on 22-12-2021. Later in March, 2022, all the three successful bidders deposited the balance sale consideration with the Goa Housing Board.
9. The Chairman of the Goa Housing Board thereafter issued sale letters to all the three successful bidders on 29-3-2022. The problem cropped up when the Assistant Engineer of the Goa Housing Board on 29-3-2022 itself issued an email to the three successful bidders informing them that the sale letters had been issued inadvertently and that too without obtaining the prior approval/consent of the Managing Director of the Goa Housing Board.
10. The aforesaid action of the Goa Housing Board at the last minute compelled all the three successful bidders to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay at Goa by filing three separate Writ Petitions.
11. The High Court adjudicated all the three Writ Petitions and ultimately allowed them by a common order issuing the following directions:-
7“135. For all the above reasons, though we have heard the learned Counsel for the intervenors, based upon the intervenors' arguments, relief cannot be denied to the petitioners.
136. At one stage, we were considering whether relief should be withheld from the petitioners in Writ Petition No.450 and 451 of 2022 because the bids submitted by these petitioners were ¥37,500/- and 36,000/- per square meter against the minimum reserve price of ₹35,000/- per sq. meter. Although the bids were higher than the minimum reserve price, we thought that if at the same auction, the neighbouring plot could fetch 71,000/- per sq. meter, then it is only appropriate that the petitioners in Writ Petition No.450 and 451 of 2022 increase their bids proportionately. Accordingly, we requested Mr Lawande to obtain instructions from the Petitioners in the two petitions.
137. On instructions, Mr Lawande, on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.450/2022, stated that the Petitioner agrees to a 10% increase. Therefore, though we think that the Petitioners in Writ Petitions 450 and 451 of 2022 should increase their bids to at least 50,000/-
per square metre, we understand that we cannot compel them to do so. However, based on this factor, we also do not think that we must decline relief even though the action of the State and GHB is ultra vires and unreasonable.
138. As observed earlier, this aspect was considered and deliberated upon by the GHB in its 500th meeting held on 15.12.2021. The notings of this Board meeting indicate that the GHB felt that the average price fetched in respect of all three plots was 49,864.80/- as against the minimum, reserve price of *35,000/-, and therefore the bids could be accepted. This was a commercial decision. Moreover, no malafides have been alleged either by the intervenors or the Government. Therefore, though this decision qua plots H and I might not align with our views on rates, we do not think we would be justified in denying relief to the Petitioners in Writ Petition nos.450 and 451 of 2022.
139. Besides, the impugned decision/directive of the State Government is also not entirely clear on whether it was based on the inadequate rates for two plots or the necessity to keep these plots as open spaces. Therefore, upon cumulative consideration of all such factors, whilst we are not inclined to deny relief to the petitioners in Writ Petition No.450 and 451 of 2022, we leave it to the GHB, and the said two Petitioners to negotiate some higher rate.
8140. Mr Lawande's statement concerning the Petitioner in writ Petition No.450 of 2022 is accepted. The Petitioner must comply with it within some reasonable time to be indicated by GHB. But we still think and hope that the petitioners in these two petitions must consider enhancing the rate offered by them, no doubt, after accounting for the differences between plots 'G' on the one hand and plots 'H' and 'I' on the other. However, the delivery of possession must not be delayed on this ground.
141. For all the above reasons, we allow these petitions and quash and set aside the following impugned decisions:
(i) Communication no.2/38/202 10/HSB dated 07.06.2022 by which the Section Officer (Housing) forwarded file notings by styling the same as "decision taken by the Government" for information and necessary action by the Managing Director of GHB;
(ii) The decision of the GHB revoking/cancelling Sale Letter in respect of plot numbers 'G', 'H' & 'I' at Porvorim as contained in the Minutes of the 504th meeting held on 15.06.2022;
(iii) Communication dated 12.07.2022 issued by the Managing Director, GHB, informing the petitioners of such cancellation, and
(iv) The email communication dated 29.03.2022 (sent at 4.52 pm) by Assistant Engineer, GHB, purporting to withdraw the Sale Letter dated 29.03.2022 issued by Managing Director, GHB at 2.21 pm.
142. Further, we direct the GHB to act in furtherance of Sale Letters dated 29.03.2022, which now revive and, to hand over physical possession of the three plots to the petitioners within two weeks from today. Accordingly, the three years for completion of the project, as specified in the Sale Letter dated 29.03.2022, will commence from handing over the physical possession of the three plots to the petitioners.
143. All these petitions and the Misc. Civil Applications therein are disposed of.”
12. In such circumstances, referred to above, the State of Goa is here before this Court with these appeals.
13. Mr. Shyam Divan, the learned Senior counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants – State of Goa, Mr. Sidharth Bhatnagar, the 9 learned Senior counsel appeared on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 and 4 respectively i.e. the Goa Housing Board and Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, the learned Senior counsel appeared on behalf of the private respondents i.e. the original writ petitioners/successful bidders.
14. During the pendency of the three appeals before us, a major development took place and in the wake of such development, we need not now adjudicate the appeals on merit.
15. As noted above, there are three plots in question. It appears that M/s. Veera Promenade Pvt. Ltd. filed an application No.79751/2023 for direction stating that it had given up its right of allotment in respect of commercial plot `G’ admeasuring 4185 square meters and thereby sought permission to withdraw the total amount paid by it with interest at the rate of 6% out of the amount deposited by the petitioner - State.
16. It appears that this Court permitted M/s Veera Promenade Pvt.
Ltd. to withdraw Rs.31,14,17,080/- (Rupees thirty one crore, fourteen lakh, seventeen thousand and eighty only) & Rs.31,88,042/-
(Rupees thirty one lakh, eighty eight thousand and forty two only) respectively vide order dated 13-10-2023. Thus, from the aforesaid, it appears that the State’s dispute with M/s Veera Promenade Pvt.
Ltd. came to be resolved and plot `G’ is now free of all encumbrances.
17. We are now concerned with the remaining two plots i.e. Plot No. `H’ and Plot No.`I’ respectively, referred to above.
18. During the pendency of these appeals before us, the other two allotes i.e. M/s. JPS Realtors Pvt. Ltd & M/s. A.V. Estates Pvt.
10Ltd. have also entered into a settlement with the State of Goa as well as the Goa Housing Board respectively.
19. We are informed that a Memorandum of Understanding dated 11-10-2023 has been reduced into writing between the parties duly signed on a stamp paper.
20. We are further informed that the MOU has been signed by the Secretary of the Housing Department, Govt. of Goa, the Chairman of the Goa Housing Board and the authorized representatives of M/s.
JPS Realtors Pvt. Ltd and so also that of M/s. A.V. Estates Pvt.
Ltd.
21. The MOU is ordered to be taken on record and the same shall be kept with the record of this case.
22. By the said Memorandum of Understanding, it has been agreed between the parties that M/s. JPS Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. A.V. Estates would be jointly handed over plot C (admeasuring 7400 sq. metres in Porvorim in exchange for the consideration paid by them towards the Plots `I’ and `H’ respectively (jointly admeasuring 6740 square metres).
23. We take notice of the fact that the original two plots are abetting the main road, whereas the plot which is now being offered and has been accepted is somewhere near the vicinity of the two plots but not abetting the main road. By Clause 23 of the MOU, the parties have also undertaken to file a joint application for disposal of the present appeals before us.
24. At this stage, we must look into few orders which have been passed by this Court over a period of time. The order dated 13-2-2023 reads thus:-
11“Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the petitioners will deposit the entire amount received by the respondent No. 3 - Goa Housing Board from the original writ petitioners with reasonable rate of interest.
We, accordingly, direct the petitioners to deposit the entire amount received by the respondent No. 3 - The Goa Housing Board from all the writ petitioners together with interest @ 6% per annum from the respective dates on which payments were made to the respondent No.3. The amount shall be deposited with the High Court within a period of one month from today. The High Court will suitably invest the amount in interest bearing fixed deposit, initially for a period of six months.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners assures the Court that the petitioners will not change the present status of the property-subject matter of the writ petition(s) and shall not alienate the same. We accept the said assurance and take it on record. We also direct respondent No. 3 – Goa Housing Board not to change the present status of the property- subject matter of the writ petition(s) and not to alienate the same.
Issue notice.
Service of notice is waived on behalf of the private respondents as M/S. Vachher and Agrud accept notice on behalf of them.
Counter affidavit, if any, to be filed within three weeks.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, to be filed within two weeks thereafter.”
25. We should now look into the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 13-10-2023 which reads thus:-
Order dated 13-10-2023 I.A. No. 206361 of 2023 “We have perused the report dated 29.08.2023 submitted by Registrar(Judicial). In terms of the said report, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely, M/s. Veera Promenade Pvt. Ltd. Formerly known as Micasa Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Gaurav Jain, are entitled to withdraw further amount of Rs. 31,88,042/-. If the amount 12 deposited by the State Government/Goa Housing Board was invested by the High Court in fixed deposit, the said two respondents shall be entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on pro-rata basis on the amounts of Rs. 31,14,17,080/- and Rs. 31,88,042/-. It is obvious that the State Government/Goa Housing Board is not liable to pay any amount to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 over and above what is permitted to be withdrawn.
A joint application has been filed by the petitioners before the High Court and the State of Goa. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks time to take instructions.”
26. The order dated 30-10-2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench is something which we should not ignore and judicial decorum and propriety demands that we must look into it with all due respect and care as something important has been observed therein.
Order dated 30-10-2023:-
“We have perused the joint application filed by the parties.
Under a private agreement between the appellants and the first respondent, instead of Plot Nos. ‘H’ and ‘I’, some other plot is sought to be allotted to the first respondent.
Since a public property is sought to be allotted to the first respondent without following a transparent process which is required to be followed in respect of public properties, we cannot give our imprimatur to such settlement between the parties.
List the matter for hearing on 6th February, 2024.
In the meanwhile, the appellants shall ensure that Plot Nos.‘H’ and ‘I’ are maintained as it is and they are maintained free from any encroachment.”
27. There is no scope for us to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court as no error much less any error of law could be said to have been committed in passing the impugned order.
1328. If we have to dismiss these appeals on merits then the situation will be that the State of Goa as well as the Goa Housing Board will have to part with the two prime plots they put to auction and sold it to M/s. JPS Realtors Pvt. Ltd, M/s. A.V. Estates Pvt. Ltd. respectively. These two plots including the third plot which is now no longer a subject matter of litigation are right abetting the main road. These three plots are situated at a prime location and can be utilized by the State as well as the Goa Housing Board for some good public project or public purpose.
29. In fact, the aforesaid should have been kept in mind by the State of Goa as well as by the Goa Housing Board at the very point of time when they decided to put all the three plots to auction.
30. Be that as it may, keeping in mind the larger public interest as also the interest of the State as well as the Goa Housing Board, we permit the State and the Goa Housing Board to go ahead with the settlement they have arrived at with the two successful bidders.
31. We direct the parties to abide by the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. There should not be any further litigation between the parties.
32. Before we close this matter, we would like to make ourselves very clear that all the three plots in question abetting the main road shall never be put to public auction again in future. These three plots shall be utilized by the State and the Goa Housing Board only for public purpose keeping public interest in mind.
33. With this assurance given by the State of Goa as well as the Goa Housing Board, we have accepted the settlement.
1434. Nothing further is required to be added to the above.
35. With the aforesaid, all these appeals are disposed of.
36. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
37. In the wake of the development, referred to above, the impugned judgment of the High Court stands substituted with the observations made by this Court including the directions.
…………………………………………J (J.B. PARDIWALA) …………………………………………J (R. MAHADEVAN) NEW DELHI 6TH MARCH, 2025.
15ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.13 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.3294-3296/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-01-2023 in WP No. 450/2022, WP No. 451/2022 & WP No. 452/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa] THE STATE OF GOA & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. JPS REALTORS PVT. LTD. & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) [TO BE TAKEN UP AS FIRST ITEM ON BOARD.] (IA No. 72591/2023 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No. 206361/2023
- APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No. 31858/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 226348/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION & IA No. 215127/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION) Date : 06-03-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv.
Mr. Arpith Jacob Varaprasad, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, AOR Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv. Ms. Subhi Pastor, Adv. For Respondent(s) :
M/s.Vachher And Agrud, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Nadkarni, Adv. Ms. Shefali Mundev, Adv. Ms. Kanishka Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Kritika, Adv.
Mr. Jaskirat Pal Singh, Adv. Ms. Pooja Gill, Adv.16
Mr. Sidharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, AOR Ms. Pracheta Kar, Adv. Mr. Aadhar Nautiyal, Adv. Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Chapalgaon Kar, Adv.
Mr. Subodh Kantak, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv.
Mr. Pritam Talaulikar, Adv. Mr. Ivo Dcosta, Adv.
Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
3. All pending applications including application for intervention shall also stand disposed of.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)