Bombay High Court
Patel And Company, Thr. Proprietor, ... vs The State Of Maha., Thr. Prin. Secy., ... on 25 January, 2023
Author: Anil L. Pansare
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, Anil L. Pansare
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 1494/2022
Patel and Company
Through its Proprietor:
Mr.Abdul Shahid Patel (Tarique Patel)
Aged about 49 years, occu: Business
R/o Plot No. 62, Opposite Green Park
Raj nagar, Katol Road, Nagpur-440 013. ..PETITIONER
versus
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary
Department of Industries,
Mining and Marathi Language
114, Annex Building, Mantralaya
Mumbai-32.
2) Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation (MIDC)
Through its Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Head office at Udyog Sarathi,
Mahakali Caves Road
Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093.
Email ID :[email protected].
3) Development Commissioner (Industries)
Industries Department,
Maharashtra Government, 2nd floor,
New Administration Building
in front of Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road
Mumbai -400 032.
4) Joint Chief Executive officer (Jr. CEO)
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, (MIDC) Head office at
Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Caves Road,
Andheri (East) Mumbai 400 093.
Email ID :[email protected].
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 :::
2
5) Deputy Chief Executive Officer-4
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, (MIDC) Head office at
Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Caves Road,
Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093
Email ID :[email protected].
6) The Regional Officer, Nagpur
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation
Address Udyog Bhavan,
2nd floor, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001.
Email ID : [email protected]. ..RESPONDENTS
.........................................................................................................................
Mr F.T. Mirza with Mr.Syed Owais, Advocates for Petitioner
Ms K.S. Joshi, AGP for Respondents 1 and 3
Mr S.K.Mishra, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Respondents
2,4,5 and 6
....................................................................................................................
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ
RESERVED ON : 25TH NOVEMBER 2022.
PRONOUNCED ON : 25th JANUARY 2023.
JUDGMENT:(PER ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
2. The petitioner is seeking a direction to the Respondent No. 2- Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (in short, 'MIDC') to allot Plot No.G-13/2 situated at Hingna MIDC Area, Nagpur (in short 'the plot') for installation of oxygen manufacturing plant under the Scheme "Mission Oxygen Swawlamban" in terms of the Government Resolution (in short 'GR') dated ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 ::: 3 21.05.2021 and Circular dated 23.06.2021.
3. Mr. F.T. Mirza, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has taken us through the pleadings. He submits that the petitioner-firm is running an oxygen manufacturing plant at Hingna, MIDC Industrial area, Nagpur in a tenanted premises bearing No.E-4/1 which is in proximity of the plot and was lying vacant for last about 40 years. The Petitioner claims to have supplied oxygen during the period of global pandemic of novel corono virus (COVID 19). He submits that on 21.05.2021, the Government of Maharashtra by Resolution under the Mission Oxygen Swawlamban, has floated a scheme for encouraging installation of new project of 'Liquid Medical Oxygen Manufacturing along with storage and cylinder filling' (LMO). It has been specifically mentioned in the GR that the land/plot for the installation of the oxygen manufacturing plant shall be provided by MIDC on priority basis with concessional rates and all the permissions for installation of the said Unit shall be given expeditiously. According to Mr. Mirza, pursuant to the GR, the Petitioner on 26.05.2021 made an application to the District Collector, Nagpur and requested allocation of the plot admeasuring 8525 sq.mt. situated at Hingna MIDC Industrial area. The District Collector, looking to the exigency, took a prompt action and directed the Resident Deputy Collector to prepare a proposal to that effect and send it to the MIDC. On 4.06.2021 the District Collector, Nagpur made a recommendation to the MIDC for allotment of the plot in Hingna, MIDC area. The third wave of COVID-19 was then anticipated. On ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 ::: 4 7.06.2021, the MIDC issued a Circular for implementation of the GR dated 21.05.2021 for allotment of land by giving priority to the project of medical oxygen manufacturing plant. The said Circular was then superseded by another circular dated 23.06.2021. The scheme was to encourage oxygen manufacturing.
4. Mr. Mirza, submits that on 28.06.2021, the Petitioner submitted an application for installation of medical oxygen plant on the plot. The MIDC has taken cognizance of the application but could not process immediately for the reason that the plot was allotted to a company named Stretchlon Private Limited. The MIDC was first required to reprocess the said plot by cancelling the allotment. Accordingly, the MIDC has taken necessary steps for resumption of plot. According to the Petitioner, after resumption of the said plot, the MIDC ought to have taken decision as per the prevailing policy for allotment of plot, but did not.
5. The Petitioner has learnt from the Office of the MIDC that approval for resumption of the plot was given by the Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC. The Land Allotment Committee ('LAC' in short) constituted under the Chairmanship of Joint Chief Executive Officer MIDC has, in a meeting dated 07.01.2022, taken a decision to allot land at Hingna MIDC to six persons and has given offer letter dated 21.01.2022. However, the Petitioner was neither invited to the meeting nor his application was considered. This, according to Mr.Mirza, is contrary to the aims and objects of ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 ::: 5 Mission Oxygen Swawlamban Scheme.
6. Mr. Mirza submits that for getting the benefits under the said Scheme the interested party has to make an application to Development Commissioner (Industries) MIDC before 30.06.2021. The Petitioner had submitted such a proposal on 28.06.2021 along with requisite amount. The LAC, however, did not consider the request in accordance with the Scheme. An attempt was allegedly made by LAC to allot the plot in issue to their favourite company despite the fact that the plot was not even included in the list of vacant plots.
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the inaction of the MIDC to implement the Scheme floated by the State of Maharashtra, the Petitioner knocked the doors of this Court, by means of instant petition.
8. The MIDC states that it is ready to allot the plot to the Petitioner in terms of the Scheme in the Butibori Industrial area, but the Petitioner is insisting for allotment of the plot situated at Hingna Industrial area. Mr.S.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the MIDC submits that the Petitioner cannot insist for a particular plot. In fact, according to him, the direction sought by the Petitioner to allot a particular plot cannot be granted in absence of any statutory rule or legal right in favour of the Petitioner and, therefore, the petition itself is not maintainable. He submits that the plot in issue was allotted to M/s Stretchlon Private Limited as far back as 1976. It transpired during the enquiry that the said Company was ordered to be wound up on ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 ::: 6 29.06.1988 in Company Petition No. 303/1988 vide order dated 09.06.2020. Since the very existence of M/s Stretchlon Pvt. Ltd. was legally vanished, the MIDC was required to commence process of resolution of plot in issue. However, in the ongoing process of resumption of the plot, M/s Stretchlon Pvt. Ltd. has addressed a communication dated 20.06.2021 expressing its intention to re-start their unit afresh after settlement of the liabilities. The request so made was not accepted and the plot in question was resumed to the MIDC.
9. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate submits that the Petitioner has not made an application to MIDC, but has addressed the communication to the Collector. Secondly, the said application ought to have been submitted online and the online window was open for the period from 31.12.2021 to 03.01.2022. A total of 19 entrepreneurs applied for allotment of land in Hingna Industrial area. The LAC in its meeting dated 07.01.2022 considered those applications and after due deliberations, a decision was taken to allot the land at Hingna, MIDC Nagpur to M/s Jalaraj Pharma for establishing the Pharmaceutical Unit and accordingly, a offer letter was issued on 21.01.2022. In furtherence thereto, in the meeting dated 04.03.2022 the LAC has taken a decision to allot 3000 sq.mt. of land over and above 6000 sq. mt. to M/s Jalaraj Pharma. Mr. Mishra, would submit that the request of the Petitioner was for allotment of the specific plot. The resumption of the said plot was not completed until July, 2022 and that therefore, the contentions of the ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 ::: 7 Petitioner about non-consideration of his request in the LAC meetings dated 07.01.2022 and 04.03.2022 is totally misconceived. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both the sides. The contentions raised by Mr. Mishra, the learned senior counsel that the application ought to be made to the MIDC and not to the Collector and that the application was to be filed online, are recorded for disapproval, since it is not even the case of the MIDC that the application of the Petitioner has been rejected or not considered on the said count. In fact, the application of the Petitioner has been considered. The fact reflects in the Petitioner's application dated 26.05.2021 addressed to the Collector, Nagpur wherein the Petitioner states that the MIDC had showed its willingness to allot a plot in Butibori Industrial area, considering the scheme floated by the Government of Maharashtra. The Petitioner, however, showed his preference for allotment of the plot at Hingna. The reason being, the Petitioner is already running the oxygen manufacturing plant in close proximity of the plot. The Petitioner's interest in the adjoining plot appears to us to be quite natural.
11. The MIDC has its own Rules for allotment of plots, namely, "Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975" (in short 'Regulations of 1975'). Mr. Mirza, has taken us through various Circulars issued by the MIDC for allotment of a specific plot. However, Mr.Mishra, learned senior Advocate, countered the submission by ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 ::: 8 contending that the Circualrs will not supersede the provisions of the statutory regulations. According to him, there is no provision in the Regulations for allotment of a particular plot and that therefore the Petitioner cannot insist for a particular plot.
12. We have, however, noticed that the Regulation 6 of the Regulations of 1975 provides for allotment of a plot by applications. It provides that where the Corporation decides to dispose of plots, by entertaining applications, such an application shall be made to the Chief Executive Officer in Form "B". We have gone through the Form "B". It necessitates the applicant to mention the plot number so also the area required. Thus, the argument of Mr. Mishra, that the regulations do not provide for seeking a specific plot, is contrary to the Regulations itself. The Petitioner, therefore, was fully justified in making application for allotment of a particular plot. The question, however, is whether such an application would create a legal right in favour of persons like the Petitioner. For that, we will have to consider the other provisions of the Regulations of 1975.
13. The definition clause of the Regulations of 1975 under Regulation 2 (i) defines "Land Committee" so as to mean the Committee formed by the Corporation for the purpose of dealing with all the matters connected with the acquisition and disposal of the land and built up sheds or property owned or transferred to the Corporation by the State Government. Regulation 10 provides for consideration of application for plots by the Land ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 ::: 9 Committee, which reads thus:-
10. Consideration of applications for plots by the Land Committee -
On receipt of any application for allotment of land, the Chief Executive Officer shall make such inquiries as he deems necessary and place it before the Land Committee with his recommendations and the Land Committee may either sanction or reject such application :
Provided that the Chief Executive Officer may make allotment of a plot of land where the requirement of the applicant does not exceed the area laid down by the Corporation. A list of such allotments shall be placed before the Land Committee for its information."
14. Thus, the Land Committee after considering the recommendations made by the Chief Executive Officer may either sanction or reject the application. This regulation makes it clear that the persons like the Petitioner though may apply for allotment of a specific plot but its sanction and in turn allotment, would depend on the decision of the Land Committee. The Petitioner, therefore, cannot insist for an allotment of a particular plot.
15. The next question that arises is whether the said plot has been allotted by following due procedure. This question arises because of the conduct of the MIDC, pending petition.
16. The MIDC in its affidavit-in-reply dated 25.03.2022 has stated in paragraph 18 that the LAC in its meeting held on 07.01.2022 has decided to allot 6000 sq.mt. land in Hingna, MIDC to M/s Jalaraj Pharma. The minutes of meeting dated 07.01.2022 have been placed before us. The proposal of M/ ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 ::: 10 s Jalaraj Pharma appears to have been considered in the said meeting. The Technical Adviser's remarks quoted in the meeting would indicate that the Technical Adviser has recommended 8000 sq.mt. of land for allotment on going through the project report and nature of activities and plan submitted by M/s Jalaraj Pharma. The LAC, having considered the recommendations of Technical Adviser so also the remarks of Deputy CEO, has decided to allocate 6000 sq.mt. land to M/s Jalaraj Pharma. It appears that on 04.03.2022, M/s Jalaraj Pharma made an application to the MIDC mentioning therein that it had requested for 10,000 sq.mt. of land, but has been allotted only 6000 sq.mt. It has then made a request for allotment of the plot in issue admeasuring about 9000 sq.mt. The request was considered by the LAC in its meeting dated 04.03.2022. The remarks of Technical Adviser have been considered. The remarks are identical to the remarks made in the earlier meeting. Thus, the Technical Adviser recommended allotment of 8000 sq.mt. land. Despite such recommendation, which was already considered by the LAC in its meeting dated 07.01.2022, the LAC in its subsequent meeting, has decided to allot 3000 sq.mt. land over and above 6000 sq.mt. The MIDC could not point out to us any material except for the application made by M/s Jalaraj Pharma to allot additional 3000 sq.mt. of land to it.
17. We may note here that during the course of hearing we were made to believe that the recommendations of Technical Adviser are significant and that therefore the land over and above recommended by the ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 ::: 11 Technical Adviser may not be granted to the Petitioner. We have, however, noted that a different treatment has been given to M/s Jalaraj Pharma when its application was considered. The LAC thought it proper to allot additional piece of land than what has been recommended by the Technical Adviser. Accordingly, on 04.03.2022, the LAC has considered the request of M/s Jalaraj Pharma for allotment of the plot admeasuring 9000 sq.mt. We may reiterate that the request was for allotment of the plot in issue and was thus considered in the meeting dated 04.03.2022. The actual allotment, however, has been made on 17.08.2022.
18. Mr. J.B. Kasat, learned counsel for the MIDC on instructions, made a statement that the plot in issue has been resumed by the MIDC on 05.07.2022 but he sought two weeks' time to take necessary decision. Thus, it was indicated to this Court that the decision in respect of the said plot was not taken, though in the meeting dated 04.03.2022 the decision to allot 9000 sq.mt. land/plot to M/s Jalaraj Pharma was taken on its request for allotment of the plot in issue.
19. Therefore, on 22.07.2022, the following order came to be passed by this Court:
" We have heard this matter for some time.
2. Mr. J.B. Kasat, learned counsel for Respondent - MIDC submits that the Land Allotment Committee (LAC) has ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 ::: 12 already considered the application of the petitioner for allotment of land for manufacture of industrial and medical oxygen and it is in the process of taking a final decision in the matter. He seeks time to file a detailed affidavit in this regard.
3. Mr. F.T. Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the LAC will have to ultimately comply with the norms prescribed in the circular dated 9 th June 2021, according to which, for every oxygen plant having production capacity of 20 metric tonne, one acre land is eligible and, in the present case, the production capacity of the proposed oxygen plat being of 40 metric tonne, the petitioner would be entitled to be allotted a piece of land admeasuring, at least, two acres.
4. We hope that the authorities shall allot the land keeping in mind the parameters laid down in Circular dated 9 th June 2021 and would not do anything to scuttle the said norms.
Stand over after two weeks."
20. Thus, on 22.07.2022 we were again made to believe that the decision on allotment of plot in issue is under consideration and has not yet been taken.
21. On 17.10.2022, however, we were required to pass the following order :
" Heard Mr.F.T.Mirza, learned Advocate for the petitioner;
Mr.J.B. Kasat, learned Advocate for MIDC i.e. respondent no.2 and 4 to 6 and Mr.N S Rao, learned AGP for respondents 1 and 3.
2. Mr. Kasat, learned Advocate seeks time for finally arguing the matter, saying that MIDC has engaged the services of Mr.S.K.Mishra, learned senior Advocate and that he is not available today and further a request for posting the final ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 ::: 13 hearing of this petition on 20th October, 2022. The date 20th October 2022 is not convenient for this Court as there are several other matters of greater urgency, which are posted. This petition, therefore, will have to be listed for hearing after Diwali vacation, 2022.
3. Mr. Mirza, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that he would have no objection if the petition is posted for final hearing after Diwali vacation, provided the Respondent no.2/MIDC maintains the status quo in respect of Plot No.G-13/2 and which has been demanded by the petitioner for allotment to it for the purpose of setting up of Medical Oxygen Gas plant there. Upon this, Mr. Kasat, learned Advocate for the MIDC submits that Plot No. G-13/2 is already allotted and the possession has also been given to the other person. This submission (about possession) has been made on behalf of the MIDC for the first time. The MIDC has not filed on record any affidavit-in-reply indicating that the possession of industrial Plot No. G-13/2 has been handed over to a third party, which possession, according to Mr. Kasat, learned Advocate, appears to have been handed over, probably on 3rd/4th October, 2022. This submission, if it is true, has resulted in creating third party interest in the dispute, not by the petitioner but by the MIDC during the pendency of this petition. The MIDC has also not filed on record the letter handing over possession to a third party. The MIDC is at liberty to file an additional affidavit along with additional documents in support of the said submission, if any. If any such additional affidavit-in-reply is filed along with the additional documents, its sets be furnished to the petitioner and each of the remaining respondents.
4. Mr. Kasat, learned Advocate further submits that possession has been handed over to the third party, subject to the orders of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.705/2022 and 1494/2022, as stated in the allotment letter. He also submits that lease of the said plot is yet to be executed by the respondent no.2/MIDC.::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 ::: 14
5. We need not remind the MIDC of its bounden duties under the law in a pending petition where allotment of a particular industrial plot on demand by the petitioner is in issue. At the beginning of the petition and even for considerable time thereafter, the plot in question was not allotted to anybody and it was available for its appropriate allotment as per the directions of this Court. But now, the MIDC has prima facie, changed the status quo in respect of the plot in question by issuing an allotment letter first and handing over possession later, all during pendency of this petition. Therefore, we would only say that the office of the MIDC would at least now seek its enlightenment in respect of the consequences of changing of the status quo of the subject-matter of dispute during pendency of the petition.
6. We hereby issue a cautionary note to the Officers of the MIDC that any further attempt on their part to further change the situation, will only result in serious consequences.
7. Put up the matter for final hearing at the stage of admission itself, on 10th November, 2022; high on Board."
(emphasis now)
22. The MIDC has placed before us the documents through pursis dated 17.11.2022. It includes the submission note dated 12.08.2022 relating to allotment of plot in issue. It states that one Amit Khadwe has also filed an application for allotment of the plot; his application was rejected and therefore he was constrained to file Writ Petition bearing No.705/2022 before this Court. The Court has ordered the parties to maintain status quo and to reserve 8000 sq.mt. land for allotment. The submission note further records ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 ::: 15 that the LAC has taken a decision to allot 3000 sq.mt. plot to the Petitioner herein. The note then refers to order dated 22.07.2022 and records that the Court has directed to allot the plot in terms of Circular dated 09.06.2021 and that the order is silent on allotment of a particular plot to the Petitioner. It is then mentioned in the note that certain land has been taken in possession by the MIDC and that the plot admesuring 8825 sq.mt. can be allotted to M/s Jalaraj Pharma by reserving 8000 sq.mt. land in terms of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.705/2022. This submission note has been approved by the officials including the Joint CEO, followed by allotment order dated 07.08.2022.
23. We are dismayed with the manner in which our orders have been twisted by the officials of the MIDC to suit its purpose. The submission note indicates that this Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo in Writ Petition No.705/2022, the subject-matter of which is the plot in issue. We fail to fathom as to how despite such order of status quo, the MIDC has decided to allot the plot in issue. Secondly, what we have said in the order dated 22.07.2022 is in context with the request of the Petitioner to allot the plot in issue and accordingly, we laid hope and expectation upon the authorities of the MIDC that they will allot the land (to the Petitioner) keeping in mind the parameters laid down in Circular dated 09.06.2021. The MIDC has conveniently ignored the earlier orders of this Court and processed further on the count that our order was silent on the point of allotment of a ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 ::: 16 specific plot to the Petitioner. It appears that the MIDC has forgotten that the petition itself was for allotment of the plot. The MIDC is also aware that the Petitioner's prayer seeking a direction to allot the plot was under
consideration. In the circumstances, there is hardly any scope to process the file for allotment of the plot, ignoring the contentions raised in the petition and orders passed by this Court in this petition, so also in Writ Petition No.705/2022. On this count itself, the decision of the MIDC to allot the plot is liable to be quashed and set aside.
24. Mr. Mishra submits that before quashing the decision, the Court will have to hear M/s Jalaraj Pharma to whom the plot has been allotted. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar and others reported in 1992 SCC Online 250, to contend that no one can be condemned unheard. The submission does not appeal to us. Firstly, we are not condemning the act of M/s Jalaraj Pharma. We are condemning the decision of MIDC. Secondly, the MIDC itself has come up with a case that the plot in issue has been allotted to M/s Jalaraj Pharma subject to the outcome of the Petition. We were shown the necessary undertaking filed by M/s Jalaraj Pharma. Therefore there is no question of causing any prejudice to M/s Jalaraj Pharma. In any case, we find that the MIDC has taken a decision in utter disregard to the court orders and the proceedings.
25. We have also noticed from the record that the concerned official ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 ::: 17 had vide submission note dated 11.11.2021, proposed to allot plot in issue to the Petitioner after its resumption. The Joint CEO and CEO of MIDC have approved the said proposal on or about 06.12.2021. Despite such status, the authorities of the MIDC have allotted the plot to M/s Jalaraj Pharma. It appears, though, that the Petitioner's proposal was considered by the LAC on 13.07.2022 and has decided to allot 3000 sq.mt. land. The Petitioner itself is to be blamed for allotment of small portion of land than demanded. Mr. Mirza, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that while submitting the proposal, the Petitioner has inadvertently quoted the unit of cylinder in 'cubic feet' instead of 'cubic metre'. This affected the proposed production capacity of the oxygen gas. He submits that if the unit 'cubic metre' is considered, the proposed production capacity will be 9142 cylinders of 7 cubic metre and not 9142 cylinder of the cubic feet. If this capacity is considered, the Petitioner will be entitled for more area and that the plot in issue will be most suited. Thus, there appears some mistake on the part of the Petitioner as well in submitting its proposal for allotment of land.
26. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back for consideration afresh, strictly in accordance with the circular dated 9th June, 2021. We also find it necessary to remind the officials of MIDC that the Regulations of 1975, provide for two modes of disposal of land - one by public auction and another by entertaining individual applications. In the present case, there are more than one applicants for allotment of the plot. In ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 ::: 18 such eventuality, it would be advisable to allot the plot by public auction which will not only benefit the MIDC but will also ensure transparency in allotment of land/plot or the applications so received ought to be considered on 'first-come-first-served' basis.
27. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate that the issue is referred back to the MIDC for its consideration afresh in accordance with law and in the light of what has been stated by us in this judgment.
28. Accordingly, we direct the MIDC to review its decision dated 17 th August 2022 to allot Plot No.G-13/2 to M/s. Jalaraj Pharma in accordance with law and decide the issue involved in the petition afresh in accordance with law and in the light of what has been stated in the body of the judgment. We direct MIDC to take its decisions in the matter as expeditiously as possible by affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Rule accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare18
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2023 21:55:56 :::