Worse still, only two weeks after receiving the letter regarding the supermatist, on December 6,2017, the municipality (including the deputy mayor and the municipality's family appellant) held a meeting with the company's representatives, during which not only did the municipality choose to conceal this vital and essential information, but also misled the company and informed it that it would contact the Ministry of the Interior in order to obtain the approval of the Minister of the Interior within a few months, when in practice, it knew very well that such approval would never be received, and therefore in practice it did not even contact him. (See summary of the meeting from December 2017 - P/15).
In this misleading position, that the approval of the Minister of the Interior would be examined, and could be given only after the approval of the plan that includes the change in the use of the land, and that due to the delay in receiving the approval of the change in the zoning plan in any case, there was a delay in obtaining the approval of the Minister of the Interior, the Municipality continued to hold and present it to the company. (See the Municipality's letter, through Adv. Ben Moshe, to the Company dated August 13,2018 (P/16) and the Municipality's letter, through Adv. Ben Moshe, to the Company dated July 17,2019 (P/25), in which it was written, inter alia (paragraph 6): "Inquiries and checks conducted in relation to the granting of the approval revealed that the Ministry of the Interior's position is that the approval of the Minister of the Interior will be examined only after the approval of the relevant zoning plan, which includes the completion of the task of changing use. This notice was given to you in writing and orally.")
- In other words, in the Municipality's letters dated August 13,2018 and July 17,2019, the Municipality wrote things that had no basis and anchor of truth, all while the Municipality was well aware of the true position of the Ministry of the Interior as presented to it in the Omreta case and the Suprematist case, which made it clear to it that the specific engagement with the company would not be approved, and even with respect to similar engagements, it explicitly clarified that this style of engagement would not be approved by it.
The municipality fed the company with erroneous information and misled the company into thinking that it would be possible to advance the transaction by overcoming the obstacle of changing the zoning plan. The municipality chose to conceal from the company the relevant correspondence that could have caused the company to plan its steps and reconsider the nature of the engagement in question, whether to continue it or cancel it. Andall this, while during all this time, the municipality held a lot of the company's funds and was aware of the fact that the company was spending a lot of money in order to promote the change in the zoning plan, as it had taken upon itself to do in the framework of the agreements signed in the first addendum to the agreement.