Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Bombay Goods Transport Association and others challenging an order dated 17th August 2012 by which the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) forfeited the licence agreement and resumed possession of plots K-1, K-2 and K-3 at Wadala Truck Terminal. The State of Maharashtra had allotted 61.51 hectares of land to MMRDA for a truck terminal. MMRDA offered plots to the petitioner no.1 for 30 years, and possession was handed over on 2nd September 1998. However, construction could not commence due to delays in plan approval by the Municipal Corporation. MMRDA extended the construction period till 2008. In February 2007, MMRDA was appointed as Special Planning Authority and demanded development charges. The petitioners failed to pay the demanded amounts, leading to the impugned forfeiture order. The court noted that the petitioners had not challenged the forfeiture clause in the licence agreement and that the dispute involved questions of fact regarding payment of dues. The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as there was an alternative remedy by way of civil suit or arbitration, and the petitioners had not made out a case for interference under Article 226. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Forfeiture of Licence Agreement - Breach of Contract - The petitioners failed to pay development charges and other dues as demanded by MMRDA, leading to forfeiture of the licence agreement and resumption of possession - The court held that the forfeiture clause in the agreement was binding and the petitioners had not challenged it - The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioners had not made out a case for interference under Article 226 (Paras 1-13). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Disputed Questions of Fact - The court held that the writ petition involved disputed questions of fact regarding payment of dues and compliance with contractual terms, which could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction - The petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of civil suit or arbitration - The petition was dismissed on this ground as well (Paras 14-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 17th August 2012 forfeiting the licence agreement and resuming possession of plots K-1, K-2 and K-3 is legal and valid, and whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of disputed questions of fact and availability of alternative remedy.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Contractual forfeiture clause
- breach of contract
- non-payment of dues
- writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- alternative remedy
- disputed questions of fact
