In Sanpada, Navi Mumbai, two plots that were initially won in bids by Godrej Properties and Shelton Infrastructure faced allotment cancellation by Cidco. However, the Bombay High Court, in its judgment on February 12, criticised Cidco's decision last October, deeming it "irrational," "clearly arbitrary," and influenced by "irrelevant and external considerations." The court noted that Cidco deliberately ignored the binding orders of the court.
The 13 plots in Navi Mumbai were part of two schemes for residential and commercial use, for which Cidco had floated tenders in February 2021. Despite Cidco's attempt to cancel the allotments and issue fresh bids through an interim plea, the High Court rejected the request. Subsequently, in October, Cidco issued an order cancelling the allotments to prevent a supposed loss to the public exchequer due to "artificial depression." Godrej and Shelton challenged this cancellation by filing petitions before the High Court.
The High Court observed that Cidco did not cancel the allotments of other bidders who agreed to pay the 'delayed payment charges' demanded by the corporation. Represented by senior counsels Milind Sathe and Samit Shukla of DSK Legal, Godrej, and Shelton, represented by advocate Bindi Dave and Wadia Ghandy, argued that the cancellation was discriminatory and violated their fundamental right to equality. The division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata concurred, labeling it as discriminatory and emphasized that Cidco should act diligently and not attempt to overreach the court. The court, in its judgment, uploaded, stressed that as a body dealing with public funds, Cidco should adhere strictly to the boundaries of the law.
The issue of the bid had faced legal challenges previously, where the bidders had successfully navigated the legal waters. Concerned that the controversy over lands in Navi Mumbai, involving disputes between Cidco and Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC), could impact them, Godrej, Shelton, and other successful bidders sought relief from the High Court in 2021. The municipal corporation had been denying development permission, claiming that the plots were reserved for various proposed public purposes.
