PARSHWANATH INFRA TECH PVT LTD Vs. MAHARASHTRA INDUSRTIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: AURANGABAD)
Parshwanath Infra Tech Pvt Ltd
Maharashtra Indusrtial Development Corporation
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard. Both these writ petitions can be decided by this common order. In both these petitions respondent Nos.4 and 5 applied for allotment of plots to respondent No.1Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (for short "MIDC") in 2012. In 2013 the MIDC's Land Allotment Committee considered their applications. Before the Committee could take decision, which was taken in November, 2014, the petitioner got incorporated as a company in July, 2014. Immediately thereafter the petitioner applied for a plot of land to respondent No.1 to establish an engineering unit. Respondent No.1MIDC rejected the petitioner's application on 19.08.2014. On 10th November, 2014, the MIDC allotted plots to respondent Nos.4 and 5 as per their applications. Leasedeeds were executed on 19th January, 2015. The petitioner raised objection to such allotment and transfer, but invain. So, the petitioner came before this Court seeking relief mainly to get the allotment, made in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of a particular plot, cancelled by issuing appropriate writ from this Court.
(2.) What is pertinent to note is that the petitioner did not seek any direction that the MIDC should reconsider its decision of not allotting plot to the petitioner. The petitioner did not even challenge the decision of MIDC rejecting their application. On the face of it, the petitions look mischievous.
(3.) The respondents submitted reply justifying allotment of plots to respondent Nos.4 and 5. Their contentions mainly are that their application came in 2012 and after following due process, the proposal was sent to the Committee and after Committee took decision, the allotments were made. On the other hand they contended that the petitioner's application was rejected mainly because in 2014 the MIDC had formed a policy not to entertain individual applications but only after following process of public auction. The question before us is whether allotment made to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is lawful Our answer is in Affirmative.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.