Pvp Star Hotels PVT. LTD. And Anr vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Ors.

Held

The Court clarified that the Applicant/Petitioner No.1 and the Respondents are at liberty to act according to the terms and conditions of the earlier Agreement dated December 14, 2007, and the modified Agreement dated July 9, 2025. This liberty is subject to applicable Rules, policies, notifications, and the payment of all applicable charges, premium, and other fees/amounts. The Court found that the application was not a request for review but a clarification, as the prayer was in consonance with Clause 6 of the modified Agreement, which represents the will of the parties. The Court relied on the principle that post-disposal applications for modification and clarification are permissible in rare cases where the Court's order is executory and becomes impossible to implement due to subsequent events. The Court allowed the application in terms of prayer clause (a) and made it absolute.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. PVP Star Hotels Private Limited, was allotted plots in Navi Mumbai by CIDCO (Respondent No. 2) in 2007 to construct a Star Hotel. The petitioner paid the lease premium and miscellaneous charges. The original allottee, M/s. PVP Ventures Pvt. Ltd., transferred its rights to the petitioner. The petitioner commenced development but sought extensions due to delays. CIDCO initially issued a show cause notice for termination but later withdrew it, granting an extension subject to additional lease premium and a bank guarantee. The petitioner contested the terms of the extension, seeking waiver of premium and withdrawal of the bank guarantee. This led to further correspondence and modified orders from CIDCO. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition (No. 4856 of 2018) which was later modified by an order dated March 13, 2025. The current application (Interim Application No. 13342 of 2025) seeks clarification regarding the petitioner's right to construct on the property.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Applicant/Petitioner No.1 is entitled to undertake and complete construction on the said property as permissible under the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Maharashtra State (UDCPR) and as per the policies of CIDCO/Respondent No. 2, on payment of all applicable charges and premium. The Petitioner argued that Clause 6 of the modified Lease Agreement dated July 9, 2025, allows construction as per UDCPR and CIDCO policies. They contended that land-owning and planning authorities are willing to permit construction under UDCPR. The Petitioner sought clarification from the Court to confirm this entitlement, emphasizing their investment of approximately Rs. 140 crores and CIDCO's desire for project completion. They also noted that an intervenor challenging a previous order was unsuccessful before the Supreme Court. The Respondent-CIDCO, through its Senior Counsel, did not controvert the Petitioner's submission that construction could proceed as per UDCPR and applicable policies. The State of Maharashtra was represented by the AGP. The judgment notes that the application is not a review but a clarification, as the prayer aligns with Clause 6 of the modified agreement.