Bombay High Court
Brashtachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 20 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:35833-DB
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 155 OF 2006
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 41 OF 2012
Bhrastachar Nirmoolan Sangathana ....Petitioner
: Versus :
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
Mr. Uday Warunjikar with Mr. Hrishikesh Nabar, Mr. Sumit Kate and
Mr. Yash Jagdale, for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar,
Additional Government Pleader and Ms. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for State,
Respondent Nos. 1 & 3.
Ms. Shyamali Gadre (Through VC) with Mr. Ashwin Kulkarni i/b Little &
Co., for MIDC, Respondent No. 2.
Mr. I. M. Khairdi, for Respondent No. 4.
Mr. Huzefa Nasikwala with Mr. Idris Balasinorwala, for Respondent Nos. 7
and 8.
Mr. Atharv A. Gidaye i/b Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade, for Applicant in Civil
Application No. 41 of 2012.
CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Reserved on : 12 AUGUST 2025
Pronounced on : 20 AUGUST 2025
Page No.1 of 22
20 August 2025
::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2025 21:49:38 :::
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
JUDGMENT :
(Per Sandeep V. Marne, J.)
1) This petition is filed in public interest challenging allotment
of various plots of land by Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation (MIDC) in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 to 25.
2) Petitioner claims to be a social organization and a public
trust set up with the objective of eradicating corruption. Petitioner No. 2
is the President of Petitioner No.1. It is pleaded that Petitioner No. 2
came across a press report in newspaper where several plots of land
were alloted by Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation to
various persons closely related to the Ministers and Members of
Legislative Assembly. Petitioner alleges that public land, intended for
industrial development in the State, has been allotted at throwaway
prices and on concessional rates, contrary to the provisions of
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1961 (MIDC
Act). Petitioner alleges that such allotment is made without conduct of
tender process. Accordingly, the Petitioner has filed the present petition
questioning the allotment of plots by MIDC to Respondent Nos. 4 to 25.
3) Dr. Warunjikar, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner would submit that the MIDC has made allotment of plots to
political persons without conducting public auction. That public
largesse cannot be distributed without grant of opportunity to all
eligible persons to participate in the bid process. That even if MIDC's
power of making allotment merely on the application is momentarily
recognized, it was incumbent upon MIDC to issue at least public notice
so that interested educational institutions which are in real need of land
could apply for allotment, thereby creating a level playing field among
similarly situated persons/entities. That the allotment in the present
case is done by entertaining individual applications made by politicians
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
and their appreciated persons. That such a course of action has resulted
in a situation where entities having no educational activities in the
concerned area are favored by allotting plots without any
advertisement. He would rely upon judgments of the Apex Court in
Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress Versus. State of Madhya Pradesh
and Others1, City Industrial Development Corporation through its
Managing Director Versus. Platinum Entertainment and Others 2 and
Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others Versus. Shashi Prabha
Shukla and Another3 in support of his contention that government land
cannot be allotted without implementing tender process.
4) Dr. Warunjikar would further submit that, in addition to
the issue of allotments being selectively made to chosen individuals
without implementing tender process, MIDC has extended further
favours by allotting the lands at concessional rates. Lands are allotted
for irrelevant purposes, such as setting up of monuments. He would
therefore submit that the allotments made in favour of Respondent Nos.
4 to 25 deserve to be set aside.
5) Ms. Gadre, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.2-MIDC would oppose the petition, submitting that the allotments
have been made strictly in accordance with the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975. That
Regulation 4 empowers MIDC to make allotments either by public
auction or by entertaining individual applications. She would submit
that an industrial area is developed in a planned manner under which
60% of the land is used for industrial purposes, 25% of the land is used
for the purpose of roads, pipelines, footpaths, etc. and about 10% area is
required to be kept as compulsory open space under the Development
1 (2011) 5 SCC 29
2 (2015) 1 SCC 558
3 (2018) 12 SCC 85
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
Control Regulations of MIDC. She would submit that 5% of the area is
required to be compulsorily kept for amenities such as post offices,
television exchanges, schools, colleges, educational institutions, etc. She
would submit that the impugned allotments are accordingly made for
the purpose of establishment of common amenities, within the
prescribed 5% reserved quota. She would further submit that the MIDC
has taken policy decisions from time to time for fixing the rates at which
allotment of plots are required to be made to the educational
institutions. That as per Resolution No. 3872 dated 2 August 2004, it has
been decided to charge 50% of the industrial rate while making the
allotment. She would submit that the regulations and resolutions are
not under challenged. She would accordingly pray for dismissal of the
petition.
6) Ms. Bhide, the learned Government Pleader, would also
oppose the petition by adopting the submissions made on behalf of
MIDC.
7) Mr. Nasikwala, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos. 7 and 8, would submit that the challenge to the
allotment of the land to Respondent No. 7 was made subject matter of
challenge in PIL Nos. 219 of 2009 and 103 of 2007, which has been
directed to be transferred to the Aurangabad Bench on account of
situation of land in Latur district. That Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are
public charitable trusts. That Respondent No. 7 has established
Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital at the allotted land and has
also developed herbal garden. That Respondent No. 8 has set up VDF
School of Engineering, VDF School of Polytechnic, VDF School of
Pharmacy and Goldcrest High School at the allotted land. He would
submit that the allotment is made strictly in accordance with the land
disposal Regulations, and that no interference is warranted in allotment
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
of plots at this distinct juncture, which would affect the educational
activities conducted by Respondent Nos. 7 and 8.
8) Mr. Khairdi, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No. 4, would submit that Respondent No. 4 is a leading entity in the
field of education and has been allotted the concerned plot of land for
setting up educational institutions. That the land is being utilized for
the purpose for which the same is allotted. He would also pray for
dismissal of the petition.
9) We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties.
10) Petitioners have questioned the allotment of lands made by
MIDC in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 to 25. Their grievance is two fold.
Firstly, the allotments are made without implementing tender process
and secondly, the allotment is made at concessional rates.
11) MIDC is a corporation established under the provisions of
Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. MIDC has been
established with the objective of ensuring planned and accelerated
industrial development throughout the State. In furtherance of this
objective, MIDC has acquired several industrial areas and industrial
estates throughout the State. Land is acquired for the purpose of
establishment of industrial areas. After notification of particular
industrial area, MIDC develops the acquired land by sub-dividing the
same into plots for development of industries. MIDC is also a Special
Planning Authority under Section 40 of the Maharashtra Regional and
Town Planning Act, 1966. MIDC has framed separate Development
Control Regulations (DCR) in respect of industrial areas. The DCR
framed by MIDC deal with various aspects relating to the planned
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
development of the industrial areas. Planned development of an
industrial area includes primarily setting up of industries. However,
MIDC also provides certain amenities within these areas. In some of the
industrial areas, housing facilities are also created for workers employed
in the industries. Additionally, MIDC also makes provision for other
amenities such as playgrounds, open spaces, schools, colleges, post
offices, telephone exchanges, fire stations, water supply units, recreation
centres, training centres, etc.
12) In exercise of powers conferred under Section 64 of MIDC
Act, the State Government has sanctioned Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975 (the
Land Disposal Regulations). The Land Disposal Regulations provide
for preparation of layout of land transferred by the State Government to
MIDC. Under Regulation 4, out of the land covered by layout so
prepared under Section 3, the MIDC can dispose of plot of land either
by public auction or by entertaining regular applications. The plots can
be allotted either on rental basis or on premium lease basis or partly on
rental or partly on premium basis. Regulation 4 of Land Regulations
provisions provides thus :-
4. Manner of disposal of land open lands:
Out of the land covered by the layout so prepared the Corporation may
dispose of plots of land -
(i) by public auction; or
(ii) by entertaining individual applications;
In either case the plots may be allotted-
(a) on rental basis;
(b) on premium lease basis; or
(c) partly on rental basis and partly on premium basis;
as the Corporation may from time to time decide in respect of each Industrial
Area
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
13) Regulation 6 governs allotment of plots by applications and
provides thus :-
6. Allotment of plot by applications-
Where the Corporation decides to dispose of the plots by entertaining
applications, such application shall be made to the Chief Executive
Officer in Form 'B'.
14) Regulation 8 provides for determination of amount of
premium for grant of lease and provides thus :-
8. Amount of premium to be paid with the application for grant of
Lease-
Where any land is proposed to be disposed of on premium lease basis,
the application shall be accompanied by such amount of premium as
may be laid down by the Corporation from time to time.
15) Regulation 10 provides for consideration of applications for
allotment of plot by the land and provides thus :-
10. Consideration of applications for plots by the Land Committee-
A receipt of any application for allotment of land, the Chief Executive
Officer shall make such enquiries as he deems necessary and place it
before the Land Committee with his recommendations and 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;
16) Regulation 11 provides for allotment of plots on
concessional terms and provides thus :-
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
11. Allotment on concessional terms-
In cases where the Corporation decides to dispose of plots of land on
rental basis, the quantum of rent and the concessions to be given in
respect of payment thereof shall be such as may be determined by the
Corporation from time to time:
17) Regulation 30 deal with allotment of plots for public
utilities.
18) Thus, under the Land Disposal Regulations, it is lawful for
MIDC to make allotment of plots in a given case by entertaining direct
applications and it is not necessary that in every case, the allotment
must be done by implementing a tender process.
19) MIDC, in its capacity as a Special Planning Authority, has
formulated DCRs which regulate the manner in which the lands in an
industrial area are to be developed. In its Affidavit-in-Reply, MIDC has
pointed out that 60% of land in an industrial area can be used for
industrial purposes, 25% area can be used for the purposes of roads,
pipelines, footpath, etc., 10% of the area is required to be maintained as
open spaces and the balance 5% area is required to be used for
amenities such as post offices, telephone exchanges, schools, colleges,
educational institutions, training centre, etc. Regulation 27 of the DCR
of MIDC provides thus :-
"27.1 In any layout or sub-division of land admeasuring more than 1
hectare for Industrial purpose and 0.5 hectare for residential purpose 10% of
total area of land so sub-divided shall be reserved for open space, which
shall as far as practicable, be located in one central place. Out of such open
spaces, an area to the extent of 5% may be allowed to be constructed, only by
ground floor structure, for the purpose of incidental allied public use, such
as a pavilion, water tank, care taker's room, store room and such other
purpose which is incidental to the main purpose for which the open space is
used. Location of such structures shall be in one corner of the open space
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
provided further that in the industrial layouts, minimum width of open
space shall be 15m and area of open space shall not be less than 750 sq. mtr
and in residential zone, it shall not be less than 125 sq. mtr.
27.2 Such open spaces, earmarked in the layout as "Open Spaces"
shall be permitted to be used for -
a) Tree Plantation
b) Play ground/ Sports ground
27.3 In such open spaces following structures may be permitted:
a) Erection of telephone line / electric line, if required may be
permitted subject to the condition, that it does not affect the main.
purpose for which open spaces is used viz. tree plantation, play
ground etc.
b) Water retaining structures like tanks for water supply to the tree
plantation, underground structures like septic tank, sump well, open
transformer, telephone junction boxes, which are part of the services.
27.4 Following areas, however, shall not be counted towards the
"Open Spaces", having regard to the fact, that such areas cannot be used as
"Lung Spaces" since tree-plantation is not possible on such areas.
a) land under nallas
b) land under cart tracts/pathways and easement passages.
c) land under transmission lines, telephone lines and the
corridors left for such services.
27.5 For any layout or sub-division of land, if any part of the land is
utilized for carving out plots of more than 4 hectares, the land under such
large plots of more than 4 hectares, shall be excluded from the area under
sub-division of land for he purposes of reserving 10% open spaces, provided
that such large sized plots are governed by the following regulations:
Maximum permissible ground coverage for such large sized plots of
more then 4 hectares, shall be 0.4 and Floor Area Ration (F.A.R.) /
Floor Space Index (F.S.I) for such large sized plots, shall be equal to
0.9.such large plots shall keep 10% of the total plot area as compulsory
"Open Space" within the Plot."
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
20) Clause 33 of the DCR defines the term "Amenity Areas" as
under :-
"Amenity Areas: In any layout or sub-division of land admeasuring more
than 1 hectare for industrial purpose and 0.5 hectare for residential purpose,
5% of the total area of land so sub-divided, shall be reserved for "Amenity
Area". Following users shall be permissible in the lands reserved for
Amenity Area. MIDC Offices, Local Area Offices, Post Offices, Telephone
Exchanges, Fire Stations, Police Stations/Chowkeys, Electric Sub-station,
Water Supply Works, Drainage Works, Common Facility Centre/Recreation
Centre, Industries, Training Centre, Industries Association offices,
Schools/Colleges, Educational Institutions, Training Centre, Pollution
Control Laboratories, Sulabh Shauchalaya, informal shopping, stall sites,
plots for PAPs, communication centers, milk booths, such other users as may
be permitted by the Chief Executive Officer."
21) Thus, in the 5% amenity areas schools, colleges, educational
institutions, training centres, etc. can be established. Similarly, open
spaces can be used for tree plantation or for use as play grounds/sports
grounds.
22) So far as the fixation of rates for allotment of plots in
amenity areas and open spaces is concerned, MIDC has given details of
various resolutions adopted by its Board from time to time fixing such
rates. It would be apposite to extract the relevant averments in MIDC's
Affidavit-in-Reply as under :-
"I say, that similarly the rate for allotment for plots in amenity area and open
spaces are also decided by MIDC from time to time. I say, that the rates in
respect of allotment of plots to Educational Institutions over the past years
were as under:
i) Till the year 1991 the Policy was to allot the plots to Educational
Institution at Industrial rate prevailing in the said Industrial Area and Rs.
1/-per sq.mtr for playground.
ii) Vide Resolution No. 2695 in 213 th Meeting dated 01.08.1991 the Board of
MIDC decided to allot plots at Industrial Rate to the Educational Institution
and at the rate of Rs. 1 per sq.mtr. for playground on contract basis for a
period of 10 years. Annexed hereto and marked Exhibit '1' is the copy of the
Resolution No. 2695 dated 01.08.1991
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
iii) Thereafter, vide Resolution. No. 3681 dated 08.04.2002 it was decided to
allot the plots to Government Industrial Training Institute (ITI) at the rate of
Rs. 1 and Private Industrial Training Institute (ITI) at the rate of 10% of the
Industrial rate in the concern Industrial area and the rate in respect of
Educational Institutions was fixed at 50% of the Industrial rate and in
respect of Universities and deemed Universities at the rate of 25% of the
Industrial rate in concerned Industrial area. It was also decided that the rate
of playground will be fixed at 10% of the Industrial area. Annexed hereto
and marked as Exhibit '2' is the copy of the said Resolution No. 3681 dated
08.04.2002
iv) I say, that thereafter Resolution No. 3707 dated 07.06.2002 the aforesaid
Resolution No. 3681 dated 08.04.2002 was modified, defining the term
Education Institute, Technical Institute, Vocational Education, etc., and
certain other modification were also made but the rate fixed under
Resolution No. 3681 dated 08.04.2002 for Educational Institutions were
continued. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit '3' is the copy of the said
Resolution No. 3707 dated 07.06.2002:
v) I say, that thereafter vide Resolution. No. 3872 dated 02.08.2004 it was
decided that while allotting plots from amenity area to Educational
Institutions the decision of charging 50% of the Industrial rate would
continue. However, it was decided that if the plots in amenity area is not
available and the Educational Institution has requested for allotment of plot
reserved for Industrial purpose then such an Institution should be charged
75% of the prevailing Industrial rate. Similarly, it was decided that in respect
of plots in residential zone the Educational Institution should be charged at
the rate of 75% of the residential rate. Annexed hereto and marked as
Exhibit '4' is the copy of the Resolution No. 3872 dated 02.08.2004.
vi) I say, thereafter vide, Resolution No. 3929 dated 02.08.2004 the power in
respect of allotment of plots to the Educational Institutions was delegated to
the Hon'ble Chairman of MIDC. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit '5'
is the copy of the Resolution No. 3929 dated 02.08.2004
Thus, it would be clear that the rates in respect of plots to be allotted to the
Educational Institutions were fixed from time to time by the Board of MIDC
and all the allotments which are subject matter of the present Petition have
been effected at the said rates fixed by the Board of MIDC. It is therefore
submitted that the contentions of the Petitioner that the plots in MIDC area
have been allotted to various persons at throw away prices by granting
concessional rates contrary to provisions of MID Act and State Policy is
devoid of any merits."
23) Thus, it appears that MIDC used to allot plot to educational
institutions till the year 1991 at nominal rate of Rupee 1 per sq. mtr. for
playground when plot is allotted to educational institute. The
Resolution No. 3872 dated 2 August 2004 fixes concessional rate of 50%
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
of the industrial rate for allotment of plots to educational institutions
out of amenities areas.
24) The conspectus of the above discussion is that the allotment
of land in industrial areas set up by MIDC is governed by provisions of
Land Disposal Regulations, DCR of MIDC and various Board
Resolutions. The Land Disposal Regulations enpower MIDC to make
allotments either by implementing tender process or by entertaining
direct applications. Thus, allotment of lands by entertaining direct
application is something which is not prohibited under the Land
Disposal Regulations. DCRs formulated by MIDC contemplate
earmarking of 5% land for amenities and 10% land for open spaces. The
Board Resolutions have fixed 50% concessional rate for allotment of
amenity plots and open space plots. Petitioners have not challenged the
validity of Land Disposal Regulations or DCR of MIDC or any of the
Board Resolutions fixing the concessional rates.
25) In its Affidavit-in-Reply, MIDC has given details of
allotments made to Respondent Nos. 4 to 25. The relevant averments
made in the Affidavit of MIDC justified allotment of plot, which are as
under :-
"i) Allotment of land to Wardha Indira Bahuuddesiya Mahila Vikas
Santha:
The allotment of land to Wardha Indira Bahuuddesiya Mahila Vikas Santha
has been sanction vide Board Resolution No. 4089 dated 24.02.2006 The
Industrial rate in Wardha Industrial area was Rs. 30/- per sq meter at the
relevant time. Since the allotment was from amenity area the Institution was
charged Rs.15/- per sq. meter for Building Site admeasuring about 3000sq.
meters, being 50% of Industrial rate and Rs.3/- per sq. meter being 10% of
the Industrial rate for Play Ground admeasuring about 9000 sq meters.
ii) Allotment to Datta Meghe Child welfare Education Institution:
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
The allotment of land to Datta Meghe Child welfare Education Institution
has been sanctioned vide Board Resolution No. 4090 dated 24-02-2006. The
Industrial rate in Additional Yawatmal Industrial area was Rs. 40/- per sq
meter at the relevant time. The allotment being for secondary school the
Institution was entitle for about 2000 sq meters each at concessional rate for
building site and round respectively However as per the request of the
Institution the allotment was sanction for about 4000 sq meters for building
sanction and about 4000 sq meters for Play ground. Therefore though the
allotment was from amenity area the Institution was charged Rs. 20/- per
sq. meter for Building Site admeasuring about 2000 sq. meters being 50% of
Industrial rate and Rs. 40 per sq. meter for remaining 2000 sq meters for
building site being 100% of Industrial rate. Similarly Institution was charged
Rs. 4/- per sq. meter being 10% of the Industrial rate for Play Ground
admeasuring about 2000 sq meters and Rs. 40 per as. Meter being 100% of
Industrial area for remaining 2000 sq. meters for Play ground.
iii) Allotment in favout of Bhausaheb Mulik Charitable Trust :
The allotment of land to Bhausaheb Mulik Charitable Trust has been
sanctioned vide Board Resolution No. 4091 dated 24-02-2006 The Industrial
rate in Butibori Industrial area was Rs. 100/- per sq meter at the relevant
time. Since the allotment was from amenity area the Institution was charged
Rs. 50/- per sq. meter for Building Site admeasuring about 22000 sq. meters
being 50th of Industrial rate and Rs.10/- per sq. meter being 10% of the
Industrial rate for Play Ground admeasuring about 18000 sq. meters. An
additional area of 2600 sq meter was also aloted at Rs. 100/- per sq. meters
being 100% of Industrial rate.
iv) Allotment To Navsanjivani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal:
The allotment of land to Nav Sanjivani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Yawatmal has been sanctioned vide Board Resolution No. 3845 dated 6-01-
2004 namely 4000 sq. mtrs for building site & 4000 sq. mtrs. for playground.
However, subsequently by Resolution No. 4121 dated 22.03.2006, the Board
MIDC sanctioned allotment of 8000 sq. mtr. of land for building site and
playground and about 17000 sq. mtr. for Nursing School. The Industrial rate
in Additional Yawatmal Industrial area was Rs. 40/- per sq meter at the
relevant time. As per the request of the Institution the allotment was
sanctioned for about 4000 sq meters for building site and about 4000 sq
meters for Play ground. Since the allotment was from Industrial area the
Institution was charged Rs. 30/- per sq. meter for Building Site admeasuring
about 4000 sq. meters, being 75% of Industrial rate and Rs. 30 per sq. meter
for remaining 4000 sq meters for Playground site, being 75% of Industrial
rate. As pointed out aforesaid the corporation has also sanctioned allotment
of 1700 sq. mtrs. for Nursing school in favour of with the said Nav Sanjivani
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal being 8000 sq. mtr for building site and 9000 sq.
mtr for playground at the prevailing rate i.e. 75% of the Industrial rate.
v) Allotment to Dr. D. Y. Patil Pratishthan:
The allotment of land to Dr. D. Y. Patil Pratishthan has been sanctioned vide
Board Resolution No. 3849 dated 6-01-2004. The Industrial rate in Pimpari
Industrial area was Rs. 2343/- per sq meter at the relevant time. Since the
allotment was from amenity area the Institution was charged Rs. 1180/- per
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
sq. meter for Building Site admeasuring about 8000 sq. meters, being 50% of
Industrial rate and Rs. 240/- per sq meter being 10% of the Industrial rate
for Play Ground admeasuring about 8000 sq meters. In Pimpari Industrial
Area the amenity is about 61.21 Hectos and the Education zone is about
15.93 Hectors.
vi) Allotment to Vankatesh Education Institution Latur :
The allotment of 5 acres of land to Vankatesh Education Institution Latur for
Building site and Play ground has been sanction vide Board Resolution No.
3900 dated 9-06-2004. The Industrial rate in latur industrial area was Rs.50/-
per sq meter at the relevant time. However no further progress in respect
thereof has taken place.
i) Allotment of Plot for Construction of Statute in Memory of Late
Rajarambapu Patil :
I say, that in the year of 1968 the Chairman Walva Taluka Sahakari Sekar
Kharkana had applied for allotment of 250 Acres of land at the Islampur
Industrial Area for setting of Co-operative Sugar Factory. Since, the
allotment involved a large piece of land and there was no issue of
expenditure for construction of roads, the Co-operative Society requested
for allotment of land at the cost of acquisition. Since, the unit was to be
established in Backward area and there was no question of construction of
road as large piece of land was to be allotted, the Board of the Corporation
consider the said request and allotted 250 Acres of land to Walva Taluka
Sahakari Sakar Kharkana at the cost of acquisition of land plus
proportionate capital expenditure for water supply scheme, at its meeting
held on 26.12.1968. The possession of the land was also handed over to
Walva Taluka Sahakari Sakar Kharkana and the Co-operative Sugar factory
is also functioning on the said plot for last several years. I say, that the said
Walva Taluka Sahakari Sakar Kharkana has been renamed as Late Rajaram
Babu Patil Sahakari Sakar Kharkana Limited. I say, that thereafter in the year
2006 the Late Rajaram Babu Patil Sahakari Sakar Kharkana Limited
requested for utilization of 8 Acres of Area out of 250 Acres allotted to Late
Rajaram Babu Patil Sahakari Sakar Kharkana Limited for construction of
Memorial of Late Rajaram Babu Patil, the Founder Member of Late Rajaram
Babu Patil Sahakari Sakar Kharkana Limited. I say, that the said issued was
considered at the meeting of the Board dated 24.02.2006 and vide Resolution
No. 4093, the Board Approved the transfer of 8 Acres of land out of the land
allotted to the Late Rajaram Babu Patil Sahakarı Sakar Kharkana Limited for
Memorial of Late Rajaram Babu Patil. However, it has been clarified that
allotment of land for construction of Memorial was not within the policy of
MIDC and the Late Rajaram Babu Patil Sahakari Sakar Kharkana Limited
should take appropriate permission from the State Government for the
same.
ii) ALLOTMENT OF LAND TO VILASRAO DESHMUKH
FOUNDATION
The Vilasrao Deshmukh Foundation had requested for allotment of land for
the purpose of Educational complex consisting of Technical, Agricultural,
Dairy, Bio-technology and Medical Science. The Industrial rate in the
Additional latur Industrial Area at the relevant time was R3 50/- per sq
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
meter. Accordingly, an area of 3.53 Hectors considering the rate of amenity
area and 8.47 Hectors considering Industrial rate was allotted to the said
Vilasrao Deshmukh Foundation vide Resolution No. 3865 dated 06.01.2004.
Thereafter, considering the representation of the Institution an area of about
12 Hectors was allotted to the said Institution from Amenity area at the
prevailing rate of 50% of the Industrial rate i. e. at Rs. 25/- per sq meter and
about 8 Hectors of land have been allotted to the said Institution for
playground by Resolution No. 4853 dated 23.12.2004 at 10% of the Industrial
rate i. e. at Rs. 5/- per sq. meter.
iii) Allotment of land to Manjara Charitable Trust :
The allotment of land to Manjara Charitable Trust has been sanctioned vide
Board Resolution No. 4095 dated 24-02-2006. The Industrial rate in
Additional Latur Industrial area was Rs. 50/- per sq meter at the relevant
time. Since the allotment was from open space area the Institution was
charged Rs. 5/- per sq. meter. The said sanction was accorded for allotment
of about 11 acres of land for Tree Plantation of ayurvedic medicinal herbs
and plants. The rate for open space was Rs. 5 per sq meter being 10% of the
Industrial rate.
iv) Allotment of land to Vidya Pratishthan, Baramati:
The allotment of land to Vidya Pratishthan Baramati has been sanctioned
vide Board Resolution No. 3346 dated 6-01-2004. The land allotted to Vidya
Pratishthan was falling in residential Zone and The Residential rate in
Baramati Industrial area was Rs. 150/- per sq meter at the relevant time.
Since the allotment was from Residential area the Institution was charged
Rs. 150/- per sq. meter for Building Site admeasuring about 5076 sq. meters,
being 100% of Residential rate and Rs. 10/- per sq. meter being 10% of the
Industrial rate for Play Ground admeasuring about 2924 sq meters. The
Industrial rate in Baramati Industrial area was Rs. 100/- per sq. meters at the
relevant time.
v) Allotment to Nav Sanjivani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Yawatmal:
The allotment of land to Nav Sanjivani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Yawatmal has been sanctioned vide Board Resolution No. 3845 dated 6-01-
2004 namely 4000 sq. mtrs for building site & 4000 sq. mtrs. for playground.
However, subsequently by Resolution No. 4121 dated 22.03.2006, the Board
MIDC sanctioned allotment of 8000 sq. mtr. of land for building site and
playground and about 17000 sq. mtr. for Nursing School. The Industrial rate
in Additional Yawatmal Industrial area was Rs. 40/- per sq meter at the
relevant time. As per the request of the Institution the allotment was
sanctioned for about 4000 sq meters for building site and about 4000 sq
meters for Play ground. Since the allotment was from Industrial area the
Institution was charged Rs. 30/- per sq. meter for Building Site admeasuring
about 4000 sq. meters, being 75% of Industrial rate and Rs. 30 per sq. meter
for remaining 4000 sq meters for Playground site, being 75% of Industrial
rate. As pointed out aforesaid the corporation has also sanctioned allotment
of 1700 sq. mtrs. for Nursing school in favour of with the said Nav Sanjivani
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal being 8000 sq. mtr for building site and 9000 sq.
mtr for playground at the prevailing rate i.e. 75% of the Industrial rate.
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
vi) Allotment of land to Datta Meghe Child welfare Education
Institution:
The allotment of land to Datta Meghe Child welfare Education Institution
has been sanctioned vide Board Resolution No. 4090 dated 24-02-2006. The
Industrial rate in Additional Yawatmal Industrial area was Rs. 40/- per sq
meter at the relevant time. The allotment being for secondary school the
Institution was entitle for about 2000 sq meters each at concessional rate for
building site and play ground respectively. However as per the request of
the Institution the allotment was sanction for about 4000 sq meters for
building site and about 4000 sq meters for Play ground. Therefore though
the allotment was from amenity area the Institution was charged Rs. 20 /
per sq. meter for Building Site admeasuring about 2000 sq. meters being
50% of Industrial rate and Rs. 40 per sq. meter for remaining 2000 sq meters
for building site being 100% of Industrial rate. Similarly Institution was
charged Rs. 4/- per sq. meter being 10% of the Industrial rate for Play
Ground admeasuring about 2000 sq. meters and Rs. 40 per as. Meter being
100% of Industrial area for remaining 2000 sq, meters for Play ground."
26) MIDC has taken a specific stand that the impugned
allotments have been made strictly in accordance with the Land
Disposal Regulations and the Board Resolutions. Petitioners have not
challenged the Land Disposal Regulations which empower MIDC to
make allotments by entertaining direct applications. Once 5% land in an
industrial area is earmarked for amenities spaces, which include
educational institution, it is actually the duty of MIDC to ensure that
educational institutions are set up in such earmarked land.
27) Petitioners have questioned allotment of plots without
implementing tender process or public advertisements. Reliance is
placed on judgment of the Apex Court in Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta
Congress (supra) in which the Apex Court has held in paragraphs 65, 66
and 67 are as under :-
"65*. What needs to be emphasised is that the State and/or its
agencies/instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to
the sweet will and whims of the political entities and/or officers of the State.
Every action/decision of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to
give largesse or confer benefit must be founded on a sound, transparent,
discernible and well-defined policy, which shall be made known to the
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
public by publication in the Official Gazette and other recognised modes of
publicity and such policy must be implemented/executed by adopting a
non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary method irrespective of the class or
category of persons proposed to be benefited by the policy. The distribution
of largesse like allotment of land, grant of quota, permit licence, etc. by the
State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and
equitable manner and the element of favouritism or nepotism shall not
influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular
functionary or officer of the State.
66*. We may add that there cannot be any policy, much less, a rational policy
of allotting land on the basis of applications made by individuals, bodies,
organisations or institutions dehors an invitation or advertisement by the
State or its agency/instrumentality. By entertaining applications made by
individuals, organisations or institutions for allotment of land or for grant of
any other type of largesse the State cannot exclude other eligible persons a
from lodging competing claim. Any allotment of land or grant of other form
of largesse by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities by treating the
exercise as a private venture is liable to be treated as arbitrary,
discriminatory and an act of favouritism and/or nepotism violating the soul
of the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.
67*. This, however, does not mean that the State can never allot land to the
institutions/organisations engaged in educational, cultural, social or
philanthropic activities or are rendering service to the society except by way
of auction. Nevertheless, it is necessary to observe that once a piece of land
is earmarked or identified for allotment to institutions/organisations
engaged in any such activity, the actual exercise of allotment must be done
in a manner consistent with the doctrine of equality. The competent
authority should, as a f matter of course, issue an advertisement
incorporating therein the conditions of eligibility so as to enable all similarly
situated eligible persons, institutions/organisations to participate in the
process of allotment, whether by way of auction or otherwise. In a given
case the Government may allot land at a fixed price but in that case also
allotment must be preceded by a wholesome exercise consistent with Article
14 of the Constitution."
28) In City Industrial Development Corporation Versus.
Platinum Entertainment (supra), the Apex Court has referred to the
judgment in Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress (supra) in addition to
various other judgments and has held in paragraph 45 and 49 as under:
"45. The High Court instead of looking into these aspects of the matter,
completely ignored the same on the ground that in the show cause notice
none of the grounds were made basis of the order of cancellation of
allotment. In our considered opinion, the High Court while exercising
power of judicial review is supposed to have gone into the question as to
how the three plots were allotted in favour of one group of persons. The
High Court has lost sight of the admitted fact that by entertaining private
applications of the same person three different valuable plots have been
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
allotted in different names. The High Court fell in error in holding that the
allotment of plots of land to the same person but in the names of trust is
also justified.
49. State and its agencies and instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any
person at sweet will and whims of the political entities or officers of the
State. However, decisions and action of the State must be founded on a
sound, transparent and well-defined policy which shall be made known to
the public. The disposal of government land by adopting a discriminatory
and arbitrary method shall always be avoided and it should be done in a fair
and equitable manner as the allotment on favoritism or nepotism influences
the exercises of discretion. Even assuming that if the Rule or Regulation
prescribes the mode of allotment by entertaining individual application or
by tenders or competitive bidding, the Rule of Law requires publicity to be
given before such allotment is made. CIDCO authorities should not adopt a
pick and choose method while allotting the government land."
29) In Indian Oil Corporation Limited (supra), the Apex Court
has held in paragraph 23 as under :-
"23. It is no longer res integra that a public authority, be a person or an
administrative body is entrusted with the role to perform for the benefit of
the public and not for private profit and when a prima facie case of misuse
of power is made out, it is open to a court to draw the inference that
unauthorised purposes have been pursued, if the competent authority fails
to adduce any ground supporting the validity of its conduct."
30) On the other hand, contesting Respondents have relied
upon judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy
and Others Versus. State of Jammu and Kashmir and another 4, in
which it is held in paragraph 22 as under :-
"22. Now the 2nd respondents had made an offer for putting up a modern
plant for manufacture of resin, turpentine oil and other derivatives within
the State provided they were assured a definite supply of resin every year.
But having regard to the commitments already made by it, it was not
possible for the State to make any definite allocation of resin to the 2nd
respondents and a proposal was therefore mooted that 11,85,414 blazes in
inaccessible areas of Reasi, Ramban and Poonch Divisions could be allocated
to the 2nd respondents for tapping on certain terms and conditions, so that
the 2nd respondents could tap these blazes and out of the resin extracted,
obtain for themselves an assured supply for running the factory to be set up
by them and make the balance quantity available to the State for its own
purpose. The 2nd respondents were agreeable to this proposal and they
accordingly put forward an alternative proposal on these lines for the
consideration of the State and eventually, the impugned order came to be
made in favour of the 2nd respondents. We have already discussed the
4 (1980) 4 SCC 1
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
terms of the impugned Order and it is clear from what we have said that the
impugned order was unquestionable and without doubt, in the interest of
the State and even with a microscopic examination we Pail to see anything in
it which could possibly incur the reproach of being condemned as arbitrary
or irrational. It is true that no advertisements were issued by the State
inviting tenders for award of tapping contract in respect of these blazes; or
stating that tapping contract would be given to any party who is prepared to
put up a factory for manufacture of resin, turpentine oil and other
derivatives within the State, but it must be remembered that it was not
tapping contract simpliciter which was being given by the State. The tapping
contract was being given by way of allocation of raw material for feeding the
factory to be set up by the 2nd respondents. The predominant purpose of
the transaction was to ensure setting up of a factory by the 2nd respondents
as part of the process of industrialisation of the State and since the 2nd
respondents wanted assurance of a definite supply of resin as a condition of
putting up the factory, the State awarded the tapping contract to the 2nd
respondents for that purpose. If the State were giving tapping contract
simpliciter there can be no doubt that the State would have to auction or
invite tenders for securing the highest price, subject, of course, to any other
relevant overriding considerations of public weal or interest, but in a case
like this where the State is allocating resources such as water, power, raw
materials etc. for the purpose of encouraging setting up of industries within
the State, we do not think the State is bound to advertise and tell the people
that it wants a particular industry to be set up within the State and invite
those interested to come up with proposals for the purpose. The State may
choose to do so, if it thinks fit and in a given situation, it may even turn to be
advantageous for the State to do so, but if any private party comes before the
State and offers to set up an industry, the State would not be committing
breach of any constitutional or legal obligation if it negotiates with such
party and agrees to provide resources and other facilities for the purpose of
setting up the industry. The State is not obliged to tell such party; "Please
wait. I will first advertise, see whether any other offers are forthcoming and
then after considering all offers, decide whether I should let you set up the
industry." It would be most unrealistic to insist on such a procedure
particularly in an area like Jammu and Kashmir which on account of
historical, political and other reasons, is not yet industrially developed and
where entrepreneurs have to be offered attractive terms in order to persuade
them to set up an industry. The State must be free in such a case to negotiate
with a private entrepreneur A with a view to inducing him to set up an
industry within the State and if the State enters into a contract with such
entrepreneur for providing resources and other facilities for setting up an
industry, the contract cannot be assailed as invalid so long as the State had
acted bona fide, reasonably and in public interest. If the terms and
conditions of the contract or the surrounding circumstances show that the
State has acted mala fide or out of improper or corrupt motive or in order to
promote the private interests of someone at the cost of the State, the Court
will undoubtedly interfere and strike down State action as arbitrary,
unreasonable or contrary to public interest. But so long as the State action is
bonafide and reasonable, the Court will not interfere merely on the ground
that no advertisement was given or publicity or made or tenders invited.
Here, the 2nd respondents approached the State for the purpose of setting
up a modern factory for manufacture of resin, turpentine oil and other
derivatives and asked for allocation or resin and the State, with a view to
offering an incentive to the 2nd respondents to set up the factory, made the
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
impugned order awarding the tapping contract in respect of these blazes to
the 2nd respondents as a part of a package deal. We have already pointed
out and w need not repeat again, that the impugned order was reasonable
and in the interest of the State and in the circumstances, we are clearly of the
view that it cannot be assailed as invalid merely because no advertisements
were issued inviting offers for setting up a factory and taking the tapping
contract as an integral part of the transaction."
31) Thus, if the State action is bonafide and reasonable, Courts
need not interfere in allotments only on the ground that no
advertisement was issued or enough publicity was not made.
32) No doubt, the State and its instrumentalities cannot
distribute public largesse to individuals of its choice. In ordinary
circumstances, allotment of public land cannot be made by entertaining
private applications and the State and its instrumentalities are required
to implement auction process. However, in the present case, there is no
challenge to MIDC's Land Disposal Regulations, which empower MIDC
to make allotments even by entertaining private applications. It appears
that a leeway is given to MIDC to allot land in a given case without
undertaking the auction process, with the aim of attracting industries in
a particular area. Similarly, when it comes to establishment of the
particular amenity, MIDC has been vested with the authority to
entertain direct applications of allottees. Once the power of MIDC to
make allotments by entertaining direct applications is not questioned,
the end result in making allotments to various educational institutions
can also not be challenged, unless the allotment is demonstrably
arbitrary.
33) MIDC has formulated a policy for charging only 50% of
industrial rate while allotting lands to educational institutions. MIDC is
an instrumentality of State and appears to have taken a policy decision
of charging only 50% of industrial rate both for attracting educational
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
institutions in various industrial areas as well as to promote educational
activities by offering land at concessional rates. There is no challenge to
the board resolution by which decision is taken to apply concessional
rate of 50% of industrial area for allotting lands to educational
institutions. The decision to allot amenity plots to educational
institutions at 50% concessional rates is otherwise not demonstrated to
be arbitrary or sans nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
34) It is not the case of the Petitioners that the allotment has
been taken for one purpose and the land is utilized for some other
purpose. There is thus no dispute that the concerned entities have
ultimately set up educational institutions on the allotted plots. During
pendency of the present PIL, the educational institutions have been set
up on the concerned plots and lakhs of students have been imparted
education thereat. It would be too late in a day now to take back the
lands from the said educational institutions only because MIDC did not
implement auction process.
35) We are also not impressed by the contention raised on
behalf of Petitioner that other needy educational institutions in the area
are deprived of land. Establishment of industries is a continuous
process undertaken by MIDC. If any needy educational institution in a
particular industrial area is desirous of securing plot of land, it can
always make an application for such purpose. The aggrieved
educational institutions have not challenged allotments made in favour
of the contesting Respondents complaining that they are deprived of an
opportunity of setting up their own educational institutions on the
concerned plots of land.
36) In view of the fact that Petitioners have chosen not to
challenge the Land Disposal Regulations as well as Board Resolutions
fixing concessional rates, coupled with the fact that the concerned plots
20 August 2025
Ajit Pathrikar PIL-155-2006-FC
are used for the purpose for which the same are allotted, we are not
inclined to grant any relief in favour of the Petitioners in the present
petition. Needless to observe that, in the event, MIDC notices any
unauthorized change of user of the concerned plots, the MIDC shall
initiate necessary action against the concerned allottee.
37) With the above observations, the PIL petition is disposed
of. In view of disposal of PIL petition, nothing survives in Civil
Application No. 41 of 2012 and the same accordingly stands disposed
of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2025.08.20
17:59:25
+0530
20 August 2025
