Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
  • RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
  • RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Case Summary: WP/670/2009 (Opinion)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petition (WP/670/2009) was filed under Article 226 read with Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner challenged allotments of plots in the Latur MIDC area and additional MIDC area at Latur to Respondent Nos.4–9, and complained of refusal by Respondent Nos.2 & 3 (MIDC authorities) to allot plots to him for industrial and commercial purposes. The petitioner sought (inter alia) quashing of allotments to specified respondents, a direction to allot one acre from land allotted to Vilasrao Deshmukh Foundation (partly earmarked for the petitioner) at old rates, allotment of industrial plots from specific plot numbers at old rates, and compensation for delay and harassment.

Procedurally, the Rule was made returnable forthwith by consent and the petition was taken up for final disposal. The Court heard detailed submissions and synopses from both sides and ultimately rejected the writ petition. The Rule was discharged with no order as to costs and all pending civil applications were disposed of.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the petitioner's early correspondence (not in prescribed proforma) dated 9.4.2001 and other early letters amount to a proper, complete application for allotment of MIDC plots.
  2. Whether the allotments made by MIDC to Respondent Nos.4–9 were arbitrary or discriminatory and liable to be quashed.
  3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to allotment of a plot (including a one acre plot from land allotted to Vilasrao Deshmukh Foundation) at the old rates prevailing on the date of his initial proposal (2001).
  4. Whether the petitioner's delay in prosecuting his grievance (including failure to challenge interim or final communications earlier) disentitles him to relief (i.e., whether laches / balance of convenience / development of plots bars relief).
  5. Whether the change of user allowed by MIDC in favour of Respondent No.4 (for educational use) should be set aside.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments (as summarized by the Court)

  • The petitioner contended his first application for allotment was made on 9.4.2001 (plain letter) and this should be treated as his primary application for a plot of about half acre; he said MIDC should have issued the prescribed proforma in response.
  • He maintained the plot sought should be from the "old area" (not newly acquired area) and that an area of one acre had been earmarked for him (shown on a map at page 78) but was later allotted to Respondent No.4 (trust).
  • The petitioner alleged MIDC entertained demands from influential persons and converted green belt into plots allotted to others (naming certain private individuals/entities), which he claimed was arbitrary and discriminatory.
  • He sought allotment of specified industrial plot numbers (B-36, E-53, or E-56, E-66) at old rates prevailing in 2001 (Rs.50/- per sq. meter) or allotment of one acre from the Vilasrao Deshmukh Foundation allotment, and compensation for delay and harassment.
  • In rebuttal, the petitioner asserted MIDC did not issue him the "white form" on the pretext that plots were not available, and he urged that his 9.4.2001 letter should be construed as his first application and therefore he should get allotment on the old rate.

Respondents' Arguments (as summarized by the Court)

  • Respondent MIDC (represented by Shri S.G. Aney) argued the petitioner's early letters of 9.4.2001 and 29.5.2001 were not applications because they were not in the prescribed form and lacked required supporting documents (project report, plans, fees etc.).
  • MIDC submitted that the petitioner was repeatedly informed of the requirement to apply on prescribed forms and to produce requisite documents; the petitioner first submitted completed applications in prescribed form on 9.6.2003 and later on 19.5.2004.
  • MIDC relied on its communications offering a 2000 sq. meter industrial plot on 3.3.2005 at the then prevailing premium (Rs.450/- per sq. meter), and contended the petitioner failed to accept / comply with the offer in time and did not challenge MIDC communications earlier, thereby causing delay.
  • Respondents emphasized that allotments were based on dates of duly completed applications; other applicants' completed applications pre-dated the petitioner's, and those allotments have been developed and are operational.
  • Respondent No.4 trust's counsel adopted MIDC's submissions and added that the plot allotted to Respondent No.4 has been properly developed and houses an educational institution; MIDC allowed a change of user and the institution is functional.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Writ Petition No. 1619 of 2011, M/s B.H. Traders Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (decided 4.2.2014) The Court observed that when there is no firm or final allotment nor any order in that behalf prior to a later date, a petitioner cannot insist that the allotment be priced at the rate prevailing on the date of his earlier application; the court's role in matters of contract is limited and it will not alter contractual terms or reduce the premium where no basis exists. The present Court relied on that reasoning to hold that where there was no firm/final allotment the petitioner here could not claim allotment at the old rate; the Court applied the principle to reject the petitioner's demand for allotment at Rs.50/- per sq. meter.
Writ Petition No. 9279 of 2012, Real Team Systems Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra (judgment dated 20.2.2014) The Court expressed that MIDC should not allot plots only on individual applications and that MIDC plots should be auctioned publicly to ensure transparency and avoid allegations of nepotism, corruption and favoritism. The Court distinguished that case: in Real Team Systems the plot was stayed and not developed, whereas in the present matter the allottees have developed their plots and are operating businesses for about 12 years, so the present petition could not be treated the same way and was rejected.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the chronology of correspondence, applications and communications between the petitioner and MIDC as set out in the petition paper book and the synopses provided by the parties. Key steps in the Court's analysis were:

  1. The Court reviewed the nature of the petitioner's early letters (9.4.2001, 29.5.2001) and concluded they were not applications in the prescribed form and lacked supporting documents required by MIDC rules. The petitioner was repeatedly informed by MIDC to submit prescribed forms and supporting material.
  2. The petitioner first submitted completed applications in prescribed form on 9.6.2003 (and subsequently on 19.5.2004). The Court treated the allotments as based on dates of duly completed applications, not on earlier informal correspondence.
  3. The Court noted MIDC's offer dated 3.3.2005 of an industrial plot (2000 sq. m.) at a premium of Rs.450/- per sq. m., and that the petitioner sought allotment at the old rate (Rs.50/-). MIDC rejected that request and communicated final closure of the petitioner's file in 2006; these actions were not challenged by the petitioner at those times.
  4. The Court found the petitioner delayed in instituting the present writ (filed January 2009) and continued correspondence with MIDC without resort to earlier legal remedies; the petition was pending for several years without interim relief and the allottees had developed their plots and operated businesses for about a decade.
  5. The Court considered and distinguished the Real Team Systems decision because, unlike that case, the present plots were developed and occupied; hence, ordering relief now would unfairly affect established allottees and the balance of convenience did not favour the petitioner.
  6. The Court was not convinced that MIDC acted with mala fides. It found the petitioner’s conduct lacked promptitude and diligence and described him as a "sleeping litigant" not entitled to equitable relief.
  7. Finally, the Court observed that MIDC indicated current premium rates and offered the petitioner liberty to submit a fresh application in prescribed form for consideration at prevailing rates; the Court incorporated this as part of its outcome rather than granting retrospective relief at old rates.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition is REJECTED. The Rule made in the petition is discharged and there is no order as to costs. All pending civil applications arising from this petition are disposed of.

Implications:

  • Direct effect on the parties: The petitioner's challenge to allotments to Respondent Nos.4–9 and his demand for allotment at old rates or from specific land (including land allotted to Vilasrao Deshmukh Foundation) were dismissed. The MIDC allotments to the respondents remain undisturbed and are not set aside by this Court.
  • The Court declined to set aside the change of user allowed by MIDC in favour of Respondent No.4, observing that a belated challenge on these facts would not be entertained.
  • The petitioner was offered liberty to make a fresh application in the prescribed proforma; MIDC was directed to consider any such fresh application expeditiously and in accordance with its rules and prevailing rates.
  • No new broad legal precedent was created: the Court applied existing principles (including those discussed in the cited precedents) and distinguished prior authority (Real Team Systems) on the facts. The decision emphasizes that allotment rights are governed by duly completed applications, timeliness, and development that has occurred over many years; it also underscores the limited role of the Court in altering contractual terms or retrospective pricing where no firm allotment previously existed.
Show full summary ...

    Vikrant Industries v. The State Of Maharashtra

    ) :-

    1. Heard.

    WP/670/2009

    2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.

    3. By this petition filed under Articles 226 read with 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the allotment of plots to Respondent No.4, Respondent No.5, Respondent No.6, Respondent No.7, Respondent No.8 and Respondent No.9 in the Latur MIDC Area and the additional MIDC Area at Latur. Coupled with the said challenge, the petitioner is also aggrieved by the refusal by Respondent Nos.2 & 3 MIDC to allot plots to the Petitioner for industrial and commercial purposes.

    4. The Petitioner has, therefore, put-forth the following prayers:-

    "(B) By issue of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature, the allotment of plots in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 8 be quashed and set aside;
    (C) By issue of Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to allot 1 Acre land from the plot allotted to Vilasrao Deshmukh Foundation part of which was earmarked for the petitioner by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer on 22.4.2004 for commercial purpose i.e. for showroom on Latur - Barshi highway in Manjara Sugar Factory Chowk by charging the old rates prevailing on the date of proposal and further be directed to allot industrial plot in Latur MIDC from B-36, E-53 or E-56, E-66 i.e. by charging the old rates prevailing on the date of proposal i.e. prevailing in 2001;
    WP/670/2009 (D) By issue of Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner for causing harassment and financial loss to the petitioner by delaying to allot the plots and the said compensation be deducted from the salary of erring officers, who were responsible for committing illegalities and irregularities."

    5. Shri Pradip Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri S.G.Aney, learned Sr. Advocate on behalf of the respondent - MIDC have submitted the dates and events in the form of a synopsis before us.

    6. We have heard Shri Pradip Deshmukh at length and his submissions can be summarized, in brief, as follows:-

    (a) The petitioner made his first application for seeking allotment of a plot on 9.4.2001 which is at page No.21 of the petition paper book.
    (b) The said application is not on a prescribed proforma, but states the need of the petitioner in seeking allotment of a plot, admeasuring about half acre land.

    ( c) The request was that necessary application forms be issued to the petitioner mentioning terms and conditions on which a plot from the reserved area or green belt could be allotted to the WP/670/2009 petitioner.

    (d) It is specifically mentioned that the plot should be allotted from the old area and not the newly acquired area.

    (e) By its reply dated 14.5.2001, the respondent MIDC informed the petitioner that there are no vacant industrial plots available for allotment and there is no convertible land available which could be possibly allotted to the petitioner. Alternatively, it was suggested that the MIDC had some ready built up sheds of various sizes available for allotment, which could meet the immediate need of the petitioner. He was accordingly advised to collect the application form from the office of the MIDC and submit the same with relevant documents. The said letter is at page 23 of the petition paper book.

    (f) Page 24 of the petition paper book is the noting dated 19.12.2001, indicating the plots allotted and the plots available.

    (g) From page Nos. 28 to 34 allotment of plots on individual applications is revealed.

    (h) The respondent MIDC by its reply dated 2.6.2003, referring to the letter of the petitioner dated 21.5.2003, at page No.35 of the petition paper book, informed the petitioner that pursuant to WP/670/2009 its reply dated 14.5.2001, the petitioner did not respond for about eight months and never informed the MIDC about any need for a shed. It was, therefore, informed to him that any simple letter cannot be entertained. The petitioner has to submit a prescribed form, duly filled in, along with all relevant documents.

    (i) By applications dated 29.5.2001, at page No.37 and 30.7.2001 at page No.39, the petitioner once again referred to his first letter dated 9.4.2001 and stated that there are plots available for allotment in the old MIDC area which have been de-reserved and allotted to new entrants, whereas, the request of the petitioner is turned down. The petitioner, therefore, renewed his request that a plot, as required, may be sanctioned to him and till then no other persons' claim be entertained. The petitioner further expressed his request that he was open to negotiate on the matter.

    (j) The MIDC by its letters dated 4.11.2003 at page No.40 and 5.5.2003 at page No.41, informed the petitioner that there are no plots available in the Latur MIDC area. However, the additional Latur MIDC area has plots available and the request of the petitioner could be entertained.

    (k) By the letter dated 5.5.2003, the petitioner was made aware about the documents that need to accompany the application form WP/670/2009 and that the details about vacant plots were mentioned on the notice board in the MIDC office. He was also made aware that from 9.4.2001, he has been submitting plain letters seeking allotment of plot, initially for the purpose of fabrication and thereafter, for horticulture and floriculture. He was, therefore, questioned as regards the purpose for which he intended to utilize the plot.

    (l) Applications of candidates subsequently filed on 16.4.2001, 28.9.2001 and 5.11.2001 have been entertained by the MIDC.

    (m) The petitioner has referred to paragraph No.4 of the petition memo to contend that demands from influential and powerful politicians have been entertained by the MIDC by converting the green zone into plots which have then been allotted to individuals like Smt. Leela Anil Agarwal, Anil Shrikishan Agarwal, Shri Dinesh Patil for M/s Swastik Gas Agency, Smt. Nalini Dinesh Patil, Arvind Patil etc.

    (n) Shri Dinesh Patil, Smt. Nalini Dinesh Patil and Shri Arvind Patil have not been arrayed as respondents in this petition.

    (o) Despite many plots being available, not entertaining the request of the petitioner and allotting plots to several others is an arbitrary and discriminatory act.

    WP/670/2009

    (p) By a covering letter dated 9.6.2003 at page No.45 onwards, along with accompanying prescribed documents annexed in the petition paper book, the petitioner applied for starting a unit and prayed for allotment of a commercial plot admeasuring 2000 sq. meters for manufacturing all types of spare parts and fabrication in the proposed MIDC area Latur.

    (q) By letter dated 7.5.2004, the petitioner was informed by the MIDC to submit an application in the prescribed form along with necessary documents, in the event he is interested in the commercial area opposite Manjara Sakhar Karkhana. A map of the available plots was supplied to him and he was informed that the said area falls in the additional Latur MIDC.

    (r) The petitioner claims that an area of one acre was earmarked for him and it is seen from the map at page No.78 and that the said land admeasuring 100 acres is then allotted to Respondent No.4 - trust.

    (s) By letter dated 15.12.2004, the petitioner was informed that his request for a plot touching the highway in the additional Latur MIDC area cannot be entertained as there is no plot available touching the highway. He was, therefore, called upon to make an application within seven days in the event he was interested in any plot in the said area. He was also informed that if he did not WP/670/2009 respond within seven days, his proposal would be considered as closed.

    (t) The respondent MIDC in response to the petitioner's letter dated 21.3.2006, replied on 1.8.2006, informing the petitioner that his request to start a commercial as well as an industrial activity on the same plot cannot be entertained. He was advised to submit a project report pertaining to industrial activity, so that his application could be forwarded for approval for industrial purpose.

    (u) The petitioner has cited the office noting of the respondent MIDC dated 22.5.2006 on page Nos.106 to 108, which contains a remark that the petitioner's request to be allotted a plot at the old rate i.e. Rs.50/- per sq. meter may be considered.

    (v) By referring to page No. 562, it is contended that the petitioner replaced his proposal and yet it was not accepted.

    (w) The petitioner, then, referred to pages at 579 to 581 to narrate the proposed activity of the Respondent No.4 foundation.

    (x) The petitioner then referred to Exhibit "G" and "I" dated 9.6.2003 and 19.5.2004 at pages 45 and 79 of the petition paper book to state that both these applications are in prescribed form.

    WP/670/2009 (y) Only two trustees are mentioned in Respondent No.4 trust and it is more of a family trust than being a public trust.

    (z) Reference is then made to the office note of Respondent MIDC dated 26.3.2008, at page 114 of the paper book, to point out that a plot on the State highway was proposed for the petitioner, however, since the land was allotted to Respondent No.4 trust, the request of the petitioner was turned down.

    (aa) It is contended that Anup Hosiery has sold its plot to Respondent No.7 Prithvi Prakashan (Anup Hosiery is not added as a respondent in this petition).

    7. We have heard Shri S.G.Aney, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 MIDC Mumbai and Respondent No.3 Regional Officer, MIDC Latur. Shri Aney submitted that he would prefer to respond to the submissions of the petitioner by dividing them into two parts.

    According to him, the first part pertains to the legal right of the petitioner in staking a claim to allotment of plots in the Latur MIDC area and the additional Latur MIDC area. The second part would pertain to the respondents to whom the MIDC has, in the submissions of the petitioner, unjustifiably and arbitrarily allotted the industrial plots.

    8. Shri Aney has, therefore, submitted his synopsis Part I to deal with the first part of the case. The said submissions can, therefore, be WP/670/2009 summarized as follows:-

    SYNOPSIS - I Sr. Dates Particulars/Events Exhibit

    (a) 09.04.2001 The petitioner applied by a letter for an Exhibit A industrial unit plot and a plot for showroom (Page 21) in MIDC Latur. The application was not in the requisite form nor supported by required material like Project Report etc.

    (b) 14.05.2001 The petitioner's request was rejected by Exhibit MIDC on the grounds of non-availability of (Page 23) land. MIDC proposed that the petitioner consider alternate built up shed which were available, for which he should apply in prescribed form along with documents .

    (c) 29.05.2001 Petitioner wrote to MIDC asking that his Exhibit E request for a plot be kept on the agenda of (Page 37) the Board Meeting of MIDC. This request for plot was not in prescribed form nor accompanied by necessary documents .

    (d) 30.07.2001 The petitioner requested MIDC that his Exhibit E application be considered for reserved site (Page 39) in MIDC, Latur.

    WP/670/2009

    (e) 05.05.2003 MIDC informed the petitioner that he had Exhibit G not made an application as per rules as the (Page 41) application for allotment of plot was by a simple letter, without submitting the requisite documents and therefore his application was not considered. The petitioner was informed about the requisite documents needed for allotment of plots.

    (f) 25.05.2003 Petitioner applied again.

    (g) 02.06.2003 In response, MIDC informed the petitioner Exhibit that his demand was not considered (Page 35) because he had not applied in the prescribed form with necessary documents and fees and at that time, no plots were available.

    (h) 09.06.2003 The petitioner for the first time filed 2 Exhibit G.

    applications in prescribed form and applied (Page 46) for two plots, one for Industrial Purpose (Page 62) and second for Showroom, both in MIDC Industrial Area, Latur.

    (i) 04.11.2003 The petitioner was informed by MIDC that Exhibit F his request for the plot has been rejected (Page 40) as plots were not available in MIDC, Latur, and that his file was closed. He was advised that the plots which were reserved would be allotted through tender and the petitioner may participate in the same.

    WP/670/2009

    (j) 26.04.2004 Petitioner applied again but not in prescribed form.

    (k) 07.05.2004 MIDC informed the petitioner that he had Exhibit 19.05.2004 been informed at a meeting with CEO, (Page 77) MIDC, at Bombay that no plots were available in MIDC, Latur. However, if he wanted he could apply for commercial plot in Additional Latur, MIDC along with application form, project report and other required documents.

    (l) 19.05.2004 The petitioner submitted its application in Exhibit I prescribed form. In the cover letter, he (Page 79) asked for a plot for a showroom. The (Page 82) prescribed form shows industrial use. The (Page 85) Project Report, Plans attached etc. show (Page 86) joint use of land for commercial and industrial purpose. The location of the plot applied for was shown next to the Highway.

    (m) 15.12.2004 The petitioner was informed with reference Exhibit J to its application dated 19.05.2004 that the (Page 104) request could not be granted because of non-availability of plot near Highway in Additional Latur Industrial Area as demanded. However, its request for allotment of industrial plot could be considered where the industrial plots are available in additional Latur Area, provided it communicated its consent within 7 days. It is pertinent to note that no such consent was communicated by the petitioner.

    WP/670/2009

    (n) 03.03.2005 MIDC, vide its letter, offered the petitioner Exh-R-3"A"

    an industrial plot in Latur MIDC (Page 394) admeasuring 2000 Sq. Mtr. at the rate of premium Rs.450/- per Sq. Mtr. and asked the petitioner to fill out prescribed form and issue a Demand Draft in 15 days, failing which the offer will stand lapsed.

    (o) 07.03.2005 The petitioner requested MIDC to allot the Exh-R-3/2 plot at the old rate of Rs.50/- per Sq.Mtr. (Page 306)

    (p) 17.03.2005 MIDC informed the petitioner that the Exhibit "C"

    petitioner's request to allot the plot has (Page 397) been rejected. However, if the petitioner was interested, the petitioner may pay the prevalent rate as per the offer letter, otherwise the MIDC would not be able to allot the plot.

    (q) 24.02.2006 MIDC rejected the said request of the Exhibit "R-3/2"

    petitioner to allot the plot at old rate and (Page 307) informed again for the second time that if the petitioner was interested in the said plot at the rate of Rs.450/-, he should accept the same in writing within 7 days from receipt of the letter otherwise it will be treated that the petitioner is not interested in the said plot and the said plot will be allotted to other needy industrialist.

    WP/670/2009

    (r) 01.08.2006 MIDC further informed the petitioner that Exhibit K with reference to his application for (Page 105) Additional Latur MIDC plot, since the petitioner was to start both industrial and commercial activity on one plot together, this was not permissible. He was also advised to submit a detailed proposal for industrial purpose.

    (s) 28.08.2004 Since the petitioner did not show any Exhibit "R-3/3"

    interest in the Latur MIDC plot, MIDC vide ig (Page 308) its letter informed the petitioner that its application for allotment of plot at old rate was rejected and the application of the petitioner was now closed. This was a final communication to the petitioner that his file for plot in MIDC, Latur was closed.

    (t) 07.09.2006 MIDC, vide its letter, informed the Exhibit "R-3/3"

    petitioner that the request of the (Page 309) petitioner to allot plot Nos. R-7 and R-8 at old rate in MIDC Latur was rejected. In case reserved plots (i.e. plot which are taken back) became available for allotment, they would be allotted by auction which would be intimated in newspapers, and in which the petitioner may participate.

    WP/670/2009 (u) It is pertinent to note that the petitioner did not come Para 11 (xviii) at forward for the said plot admeasuring 2000 Sq.Mtrs., pages 329-

    MIDC had earmarked plot Nos. R-7 and R-8 for the 330.

    petitioner. Therefore, MIDC, by way of auction, allotted the said plot Nos. R-7 and R-8 to Shri.Wazarkar Vilas Prabhakarrao, Proprietor of M/s Aditya Industries on 18.04.2007 at the rate of Rs.560/- per Sq.Mtr. And Pooja Santosh Toshiwala, Proprietor of M/s Krishna Cement Products on 17.04.2007 at the rate of Rs.553/-

    per Sq.Mtr. (Both are not arrayed as respondents in this petition).

    9. In the light of the above, Shri Aney submitted that the first two letters of the petitioner dated 9.4.2001 and 29.5.2001 were not applications at all since they were not in prescribed form and were not supported by necessary documents. In the absence of the requisite documents needed for allotment of plots, the letters of the petitioner could not be entertained. It is, therefore, contended that from 2003 till 2009, the petitioner did not prefer to raise any challenge before this Court and has belatedly filed the petition on 16.1.2009.

    10. He further stated that the application dated 26.4.2004 was also not in the prescribed form. For the first time, the petitioner submitted an application dated 19.5.2004 in the prescribed form for seeking a plot in the additional MIDC area. Vide the same, the petitioner sought the plot for a `showroom' in his covering letter. The entry in the prescribed form mentioned `industrial use'. The project report and the plans attached WP/670/2009 showed a joint use for commercial and industrial purpose and the location of the plot applied for was shown next to the highway.

    11. Shri Aney, learned Sr. Advocate further submitted that vide its letter dated 3.3.2005, the petitioner was informed that an industrial plot admeasuring 2000 sq. meters at the rate of Rs.450/- per sq. meter was being offered to him and he should fill in the prescribed form and submit a demand draft within fifteen days, failing which the offer would stand withdrawn.

    12. The petitioner, never challenged this action of the MIDC in any Court, much less, this Court. Instead, by letter dated 7.3.2005, he requested for allotment of the said plot at the old rate of Rs.50/- per sq. meter. The MIDC therefore, by its letter dated 17.3.2005, rejected the request of the petitioner. Even this action was no where challenged.

    13. By yet another letter, dated 1.8.2006, the petitioner was once again informed about the rejection of his request and to opt for allotment of a plot for industrial purpose. A final communication was issued to him on 28.8.2006 and the file of the petitioner was closed. Even this action was not challenged by the petitioner.

    14. Shri Aney, learned Sr. Advocate further stated that by letter dated 7.9.2006, the petitioner was informed that his request for allotment of plot Nos. R-7 and R-8 at old rates in MIDC Latur area was rejected and WP/670/2009 that in case, reserved plots become available for allotment, they would be allotted by auction and this would be intimated to the public through the news paper. Therefore, the said plot Nos. R-7 and R-8, earmarked for the petitioner, were auctioned and allotted to Shri Vilas Prabhakarrao Wazakar, Proprietor of Aditya Industries on 18.4.2007 at the rate of Rs.

    560/- per sq. meter and to Pooja Santosh Toshiwala, Proprietor of M/s Krishna Cement Products on 17.4.2007 at the rate of Rs.553/- per sq. meter, respectively.

    15. Shri Aney, learned Sr. Advocate has, thereafter, taken us through the procedure for allotment of plots, the white form and the blue form, which are at page No.325 onwards of the petition paper book. He has, therefore, submitted that the petitioner was never serious about being allotted a plot. He kept on oscillating between the old MIDC area and the additional MIDC area. He wanted plots for industrial as well as commercial purposes and that too situated on the highway. Shri Aney further submitted that the wife and son of the petitioner had applied in prescribed form and have already been allotted plots. This statement is not denied by the petitioner at all. He, therefore, raised an issue as to how can the petitioner pretend that he was not aware of moving an application in the prescribed proforma. He further contended that the petitioner was never interested in a plot for business purposes.

    16. Shri Aney, learned Sr. Advocate has then put forth his submissions on the second part of the case and has submitted Synopsis-II, in support WP/670/2009 thereof. The said submissions through Synopsis-II can be summarized as follows :-

    SYNOPSIS - II Sr. Name Date of Date of Date of Date of application duly offer and acceptance completed amount of application premium rate

    (a) Vikrant Industries, 13.06.2003 13.06.2003 Latur Industrial (Exhibit G Area - Industrial at page 59 (Petitioner)

    (b) Vikrant Industries, 13.06.2003 13.06.2003 Latur Industrial (Exhibit G Area - Commercial at Page 46) (petitioner)

    (c) Addl.Latur 19.05.2004 19.05.2004 03.03.2005 EMD is not Industrial Area, (Exhibit I at (Rs.450/- paid Vikrant Industries - Page 82) per Sq.

    (f) Chandrakant Patil 01.08.1985 20.03.1986 06.06.1986 27.06.1986 Chief Promoter of Rs.10/- per Proposed Pvt.Ltd., Sq.Mtr.

    05.08.2002 05.08.2002 07.08.2002 07.08.2002 Kavita Agro Industries. E-53 (Respondent 6)

    (i) Shri.Chandulal 19.08.1994 19.08.1994 Rs.20/- per 19.09.1994 B.Baldawa (Exhibit 7 (Exhibit 7 Sq.Mtr.

    (m) Vilasrao Deshmukh 28.09.2001 28.09.2001 24.04.2006 20.09.2006 Foundation Rs.5/- per Addl.Latur, OS Sq.Mtr.

    (o) It is pertinent to note that the said plot was earmarked for reserved expansion of Harangud Railway therefore on 31st August 2009 the plot from Amenity area was allotted at the rate of Rs.200/- per Sq.Mtr.

    17. Shri Aney, learned Sr. Advocate, therefore, submitted that the first application of the petitioner in prescribed form is dated 13.6.2003 duly completed for industrial area and commercial area. Applications of all other entities, including Respondent No.5, Respondent No.6, Respondent No.7 and Respondent No.4 were duly completed applications, prior in time, vis-à-vis the petitioner.

    18. From the details submitted in Synopsis-II, it is made clear that the applications duly completed were entertained and the letters submitted by the petitioner could not, therefore, be considered. He, further submitted that neither can the allotment of plots to the respondents be questioned after a passage of almost 12 years, nor can the petitioner's petition be entertained having been filed belatedly in January 2009. He, WP/670/2009 therefore, questioned the bonafides of the petitioner.

    19. Shri Hon, learned Advocate representing Respondent No.4 trust adopted the submissions of Shri Aney and further contended that the plot allotted to Respondent No.4 - trust has been properly developed and the educational institution housed thereon is also functional. The MIDC has allowed the change of user and it is pursuant thereto that the said educational institution has been conducting its activities.

    20. The contention of Advocate Shri Deshmukh that the change of user needs to be set aside, does not deserve consideration, primarily, for the reason that a belated challenge in the manner in which it has been raised in the instant petition, is not being entertained by us. The petitioner, as observed by us, could have raised his challenge well in time had he been serious about it. In these circumstances, the action of MIDC in allowing the change of user in favour of respondent No.4 - trust is not being gone into by us in this Writ Petition.

    21. Shri Pradip Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioner in rebuttal has contended that the MIDC did not issue him a white form (prescribed proforma) on the pretext that plots were not available or else his application in prescribed proforma would have been the earliest. He has, therefore, attributed malafides to the conduct of the MIDC and contended that the mischief played by MIDC cannot be used to their advantage. He, therefore, canvassed that his letter dated 9.4.2001 WP/670/2009 should be construed to mean his first application and a plot from the land allotted to respondent No.4, should be allotted to him admeasuring 2000 sq. meters at the old rate of Rs.50/- per sq. meter.

    22. We have considered the submissions of the respective sides and with their assistance have gone through the entire petition paper book.

    We have considered the synoptical submissions of the respective sides.

    23. We are not in agreement with the submissions of the petitioner. In the event, he was aggrieved by the rejection of his letter dated 9.4.2001, he could have resorted to such legal means, which could have fetched him the blanket application forms (prescribed proforma) to be filled in. It appears that the response of the MIDC to his letter dated 9.4.2001 was countered by a reply from the petitioner. Instead of resorting to appropriate legal remedies , he engaged in a correspondence with the MIDC. His various applications indicate that he was demanding plots, either in reserved areas like a green belt or on the State highway. He desired plots for industrial purpose as well as for commercial purposes. In one breath, he expressed a desire to start industrial and commercial activity on the same plot and in another breath he demanded that plot which earlier was earmarked for him and lateron allotted to Respondent No.4 trust. From 2001 onwards, till December 2008 he continued to enter into a correspondence with the MIDC and submitted different application in prescribed forms from 2003 onwards. As such, we are not in agreement with the petitioner to treat his letter dated 9.4.2001 as his first proper WP/670/2009 application.

    24. The contention of the petitioner that even today a plot should be allotted to him as per the old rate of Rs.50/- per sq. meter prevalent in 2001, is fallacious. In any situation the MIDC is not expected to allot a plot to any entity merely because the application was made on a particular date and in the absence of definite steps towards the allotment of the plot.

    25. A similar challenge was dealt with by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1619 of 2011, decided on 4.2.2014 between M/s B.H.Traders Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. In somewhat similar circumstances, the proposal of the said petitioner was pending. It was decided after directions by this Court were issued. The said petitioner then raised a grievance that the original offer of Rs.10,00,000/- for the said plot must be accepted by the MIDC and its demand for Rs. 57,50,000/- as the price of the plot on the date it was allotted to the petitioner, is unsustainable.

    Turning down the said challenge, this Court held that the petitioner ought to pay the amount of premium as sought in the impugned communication.

    We have concluded that when no firm or final allotment nor any order in that behalf was issued by the MIDC, the petitioner could not demand the said allotment to be priced at the rate then prevailing on the date of his application.

    26. Paragraph No.4 of the said order (supra) reads thus:-

    WP/670/2009 "4. As contended by the learned advocate appearing for the M.I.D.C. we do not find any firm or final allotment nor any order in that behalf prior to 08.02.2011. The order has to precede the requisite decision and sanction. That has come much later on. In such circumstances, when neither of the Division Bench orders state anything about the terms and conditions of the allotment or the order in that behalf, then, we are of the opinion that the demand raised by the M.I.D.C. cannot be said to be unreasonable, unfair and unjust or arbitrary, requiring interference in writ jurisdiction Ultimately, in matters of contract, this Court has limited role to play. It cannot formulate nor can it frame a contract or alter any term or condition of any existing one. In these circumstances and finding no basis for reducing the premium price, in relation to a public property, we refrain from interfering in writ jurisdiction."

    27. It has been pointed out to us by respondent MIDC that, in its reply dated 14.5.2001, on the one hand the petitioner was informed that there are no vacant industrial plots available in the Latur MIDC area and there was no convertible land available for allotment. On the other hand, he was specifically informed through the said reply that if he developed any interest in the ready built up sheds, he was at liberty to collect the white application form from the office of the MIDC and submit the same after being duly filled in with supporting necessary documents. Even if the petitioner may not have been interested in the sheds available for allotment, nevertheless, he could have applied for collecting the white form and could have submitted it putting forth whatever demands / requests that he desired to make to the respondent MIDC. He preferred WP/670/2009 to engage the respondent MIDC in plain correspondence and subsequently submitted the prescribed form for the first time on 9.6.2003. As such, owing to passage of almost eight years (this petition is filed in January 2009) and there being no interim relief in favour of the petitioner for the past five years, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for entertaining the belated grievance of the petitioner. Similarly, all the allottees, those impleaded as respondents as well as those who have not been so impleaded, have developed their said plots and are operating their units as per the statement of the MIDC. In this situation, balance of convenience does not favour the petitioner. On this count as well, the petition must fail.

    28. In our judgment dated 20.2.2014 in Writ Petition No. 9279 of 2012 between Real Team Systems Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra we had concluded that the MIDC ought not to allot plots only on individual applications and that such MIDC plots should be auctioned publically so as to ensure complete transparency, which avoids the charge of nepotism, corruption and favoritism . However, in the said case, the allotment of the said plot T-22 was stayed by the interim orders of this Court. As such, there was no development on the said plot. Inasmuch as, there were no other respondents - allottees before us, who could have been impacted / affected by our judgment. As such, in that case, an issue as regards plots having been developed and industrial / commercial units operating their business was not the situation before us. In the instant case, on account of the laxity of the petitioner in filing his petition in January 2009 and the WP/670/2009 matter pending admission before this Court for five years, resulting in the respondent allottees having developed their plots and having operated their business for about 12 years or more, is sufficient to convince us to distinguish this case from the Real Team Systems Case (supra) and reject this petition. Needless to state, every case has to be decided on its own facts and we do not find that the delay caused in filing this petition and the contentions set out deserve to be considered by us.

    29. Looking at the entire situation before us and the facts recorded herein above, we are of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner is unsustainable. His application dated 9.4.2001 could not have been entertained by respondent MIDC, inasmuch as, the allotments made to the respondents are based on the dates of their duly completed applications.

    30. We are not convinced about existence of malafides attributed to the respondent MIDC by the petitioner. Moreover, we would like to observe that a person like the present petitioner, who has filed the Writ Petition invoking Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, not only is under an obligation to make out a case, but should have approached this Court with clean hands, promptitude and within a reasonable time. The respondents have developed their properties and their businesses after the plots were allotted to them over a decade ago. The conduct of the petitioner, therefore, neither reflects his bonafides nor does it indicate diligence on his part. We are of the view that the law will not come to the aid of such a sleeping litigant.

    WP/670/2009

    31. In the course of the submissions of the respective sides, Shri Aney, learned Sr. Advocate for the MIDC submitted that the premium on plots has drastically fallen and they are presently in the range of about Rs.

    120 /- per sq. meter to Rs.250/- per sq. meter. He, therefore, stated that in the event the petitioner desires to make a fresh application in prescribed proforma, the respondent MIDC would consider the same and allot him a plot, if available, at the current rate. As such, there shall be liberty to the petitioner to make an application for plot/s and the respondent MIDC Latur shall consider the same expeditiously and in accordance with their Rules, procedure and prevailing rates.

    32. In the result, Writ Petition is rejected. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.

    33. In view of the rejection of Writ Petition, all pending Civil Applications stand disposed of.

    (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ...

    akl/d

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Vikrant Industries v. The State Of Maharashtra
    (Feb 27, 2014)