January 3, 2025
Ashwini Vallakati
spkng-2-ASWP-15309-23,10246-24.doc
16. Towards this end, Mr. Chawan tendered the January 4
Instruction addressed to the CEO, MIDC and to the Commissioner,
NMMC, stating that the (then) Chief Minister had chaired a meeting on
June 1, 2023 at the Sahyadri Guest House in which Mr. Ganesh Naik,
Member of the Legislative Assembly of that area, had raised various
issues relating to his constituency. Pursuant to the meeting, the Chief
Minister is said to have given instructions by a letter dated July 4, 2023,
based on which the Government of Maharashtra is said to have
addressed the January 4 Instruction to MIDC, stating that going
forward, there should be no alienation of any land along the service
road. Even those to whom land has already been allotted and projects
have developed, must be relocated elsewhere. The purported reason for
issuance of such instructions is said to be potential vehicular accidents
in the area.
17. The ground for MIDC's inaction having become clear, and
since Mr. Chawan referred to the January 4 Instruction as being a
"direction" under the MIDC Act, it is important to examine whether
such an explanation is at all tenable. The only provision of the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 ("MIDC Act") enabling
issuance of directions by the State Government to the MIDC, is Section
January 3, 2025
Ashwini Vallakati
spkng-2-ASWP-15309-23,10246-24.doc
18, which reads thus:
"18. Directions by the State Government.- The State Government
may issue to the Corporation such general or special directions
as to policy as it may think necessary or expedient for the
purpose of carrying out the purposes of this Act, and the
Corporation shall be bound to follow and act upon such
directions."
[Emphasis Supplied]
18. The provisions of Section 18 of the MIDC Act are akin to
similar provisions across legislation involving economic policy and its
administration, whereby the relevant Government is given powers to
issue directions to bodies corporate that administer the legislation. In
fact, in many legislation, it is usual to also find a provision that
stipulates that the view of the Government as to what constitutes a
policy direction shall be final and binding on the statutory body to
which it is issued. Section 18 does not have such a stipulation, which
makes it imperative for MIDC to truly and reasonably examine if a
purported direction has been issued invoking Section 18, or whether,
even while being silent on the provision invoked, the body of the
instrument inexorably constitutes a policy direction.
January 3, 2025
Ashwini Vallakati
spkng-2-ASWP-15309-23,10246-24.doc
19. Even a plain reading of Section 18 of the MIDC Act would
point to the fact that the State Government may indeed issue general or
special directions to the MIDC on such matters of policy as it may think
necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of the MIDC Act.
The directions enabled by such provisions are meant to be directions as
regards policy matters and not directions relating to specific projects
and specific allotments of land. Since MIDC has taken a stand that the
January 4 Instruction is a direction under Section 18 of the MIDC Act,
we called upon the Learned AGP to take factual instructions and inform
us about whether as per the records of the State Government, any
direction under Section 18 of the MIDC Act has been issued to the MIDC
in connection with land allotted in the TTC Industrial Area, and what is
the due procedure in the conduct of business by the State Government
for issuance of directions under Section 18 of the MIDC Act (essentially,
the due process for how a proposal to issue directions is initiated,
processed, approved and issued, for it to be a binding direction under
Section 18 of the MIDC Act).
20. On December 17, 2024, the Learned AGP tendered a letter
from the Under Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, confirming in
writing that no policy direction has been issued by the State
January 3, 2025
Ashwini Vallakati
spkng-2-ASWP-15309-23,10246-24.doc
Government to the MIDC under Section 18 of the MIDC Act. The State
Government's letter dated December 16, 2024 confirming this position
has been taken on record by us. Once it is clear that there has been no
processing for issuance of any direction under Section 18 of the MIDC
Act (the only means of legitimate instruction from the Government of
Maharashtra to MIDC and that too on a policy matter), it is clear that
the January 4 Instruction is not at all a policy direction under Section 18
of the MIDC Act, and that cannot be the basis of MIDC refusing to
discharge its statutory duty owed pursuant to its functioning.
21. Instead, what becomes clear is that the MIDC had, in
compliance with all due process, allotted the lands involved in these
Petitions. Such due process was suddenly interfered with, and stalled,
at the instance of the local political representative. The contents of the
January 4 Instruction are not only ambiguous in terms of dealing with
pre-existing and accrued rights, but also do not even contain a
semblance of a reasoned articulation of why such pre-existing rights and
pre-approved projects are to be interfered with. Since the January 4
Instruction purports to recommend that even existing projects should
be relocated, it would, at best, partake the character of a proposal. We
asked Mr. Chawan if any land acquisition proposal has been initiated
January 3, 2025
Ashwini Vallakati
spkng-2-ASWP-15309-23,10246-24.doc
since January 2024 (this matter was finally heard in December 2024) to
acquire the lands on which projects are already implemented, since the
MIDC believes the January 4 Instruction to be a binding policy
direction. The response was in the negative. On the contrary, on July
26, 2024 (over six months after the purported direction), the MIDC had
written to the Principal Secretary, Industries, Government of
Maharashtra, making a reference to the issues raised by the MLA, and
the restrictions imposed by the January 4 Instruction, seeking
clarifications from the State Government. None has been forthcoming.
22. Evidently, validly processed projects have simply been stalled
and interfered with, without any basis in law - firmly placing the
inaction by MIDC and the core reason or justification behind the
stalling, in the realm of manifest arbitrariness, necessitating our
intervention in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The facts collectively paint a vivid picture of
interference with the functioning of the MIDC, in the name of issuance
of policy directions, which we are clearly informed, have never been
issued. Besides, the written contents of the January 4 Instruction, ex
facie do not carry the character of a policy direction, and they are
evidently directions on the manner of handling projects.
January 3, 2025
Ashwini Vallakati
spkng-2-ASWP-15309-23,10246-24.doc
23. The robust opposition to the projects in these proceedings by
the NMMC calls for analysis. It is the MIDC that has planned and
developed the TTC Industrial Area. Reservations for specific purposes,
whether for parking or service roads or for development of hotels, and
provisions for various other activities is normally envisaged in the
planning and development process. It would be on the basis of such
planning by MIDC that the TTC Industrial Area would have been
developed. Such planning involves widespread public consultation. It is
MIDC that planned the development in this region, and the actual
development has to conform to the approved plan. If planned
development can be arbitrarily interfered with, and that too at the
purported behest of a local municipal body, there would be no sanctity
to the process of planned development.
24. In the instant case, MIDC has made allotments, its allotment
letters contain stipulations and deadlines for activity to be undertaken
by the allottee, and yet, despite pocketing the money payable by the
allottees, the MIDC has refrained from moving the process forward,
evidently on the basis of political interference through a process
unknown to law. Consequently, it would be necessary to direct the
MIDC to execute the requisite agreements to lease with the Petitioners
January 3, 2025
Ashwini Vallakati
spkng-2-ASWP-15309-23,10246-24.doc
and hand over their respective land parcels for development in terms of
the allotments made.
25. There is one other facet of the matter. The January 4
Instruction was issued purportedly pursuant to a meeting held by the
then Chief Minister in June 2023 i.e. with a gap of over six months.
Even by June 2023, several years had gone by since the allotment of the
land parcels in question, and receipt of payments for the same (all in
2021). If the MIDC (even if mistakenly) was of the view that the
January 4 Instruction was a policy direction that it was required to
follow as a binding direction (to deny even rights that have already
accrued against it), it begs the question as to why the MIDC did not act
between 2021 January 2024. One wonders how the MIDC felt entitled
to sit on the monies received throughout this period. Even after
January 2024, there is not a semblance of an effort to communicate to
the allottees that it was in receipt of a binding policy direction. The
Petitioners had to approach the constitutional court to even be told that
there is a purported policy direction issued to the MIDC. Such conduct
is inexplicable, and points to the manner in which development has
been approached in the State of Maharashtra at least in these two cases.
26. Before parting, for the sake of completeness, it must be stated
January 3, 2025
Ashwini Vallakati
spkng-2-ASWP-15309-23,10246-24.doc
that even if the January 4 Instruction were to be a policy direction under
Section 18, the issuance of such a direction would be amenable to
judicial review in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, on the touchstone of manifest arbitrariness
and the absence of reason.
27. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in allowing
both the Writ Petitions and directing the MIDC to execute the requisite
agreements to lease, within a period of six weeks from today, and to
hand over physical possession of the respective allotted lands to the
Petitioners.
28. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, and these Writ
Petitions are disposed of accordingly. Although we have disposed of
these Writ Petitions, they are placed for reporting compliance on
February 3, 2025.
29. All actions required pursuant to this order shall be taken
upon receipt of a downloaded copy of this order as available on this
Court's website.
[SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
January 3, 2025
Ashwini Vallakati
