Bombay High Court
M/S. Ambika Steel Corporation, Through ... vs Maharashtra Industrial Development ... on 28 March, 2025
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar
2025:BHC-AS:14583-DB
1 WP-9865-2014 .doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Date: 2025.03.29
14:31:26 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 9865 OF 2014
M/s. Ambika Steel Corporation )
Plot No.205, J - Block, MIDC Bhosari, )
Pune-411 026, Through its Proprietor, )
Mr. Motilal Ramji Choudhary, aged 61 years, ) ... Petitioner
Occ. Business, residing at Ambika Niwas,
Plot No.140, Sector No.24, Pradhikaran,
Nigadi, Pune - 411 044.
V/s
1] Maharashtra Industrial Development)
Corporation, )
'Udyogsarthi' Mahakali Caves Road, Marol Indl. )
Area Andheri (E), Mumbai )
)
2] The Regional Officer, )
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, )
having his office at Jog Centre, Wakadewadi, )
Pune - 411003 )
)
3] The Principal Secretary, )
Industries, Energy & Labour Department )
Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, )
Mumbai -400 032. )
) ....Respondents
4] The State of Maharashtra )
Mr. Pralhad Paranjape a/w Mr. Rahul Punjabi & Mr. Yash Tembe,
Advocates for the petitioner.
Ms. Shyamali Gadre, Advocate i/b Little & Co. for respondent no.1 -
MIDC.
Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Additional Government Pleader a/w Ms. D.S.
Deshmukh, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
****
BDP-SPS
1/10
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 01:43:51 :::
2 WP-9865-2014 .doc
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR &
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
Date on which the arguments were heard : 17/12/2024
Date on which the judgment is pronounced : 28/03/2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per A.S. Chandurkar, J.)
1] The petitioner, a private entity is a lessee of the Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation - MIDC having been granted a
lease for a period of 95 years in respect of an industrial plot of land
being Plot No. 205-J Block, MIDC, Bhosari. It has approached this
Court by filing the present writ petition and seek the following reliefs:-
"(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a
writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or
direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India directing the Respondent to enter into an
Agreement of Lease for a Plot No.J-394-1
admeasuring 1182 sq. mtrs at Pimpri for a plot at the
rate of 7700/- per sq. mtrs. And refund the excess
amount to the petitioner;"
"(c) To hold and declare that the possession of the
plot handed over to the Petitioner should be reckoned
from the date the Agreement of Lease is entered into
with the Petitioner."
2] It is the case of the petitioner that it was undertaking engineering
BDP-SPS
3 WP-9865-2014 .doc
activities on Plot No.205 J-Block, MIDC, Bhosari. It sought to expand
its activities and hence on 17/02/2011, it applied for allotment of Plot
No.J-394/1 admeasuring about 1214 square meters. Pursuant to a
meeting of the Land Allotment Committee on 24/08/2011 its
application was scrutinized and the said Committee decided to allot Plot
No.J-394-1 to the petitioner subject to conditions laid down in MIDC
Circular dated 18/03/2008 for expansion of its Unit. The MIDC issued
an offer letter to the petitioner on 05/10/2011 stating therein that the
rate of premium payable for the land to be allotted was Rs 8,251/- plus
additional 10% of the said amount, thus totalling Rs 9,077/- per square
meter. The petitioner was called upon to submit its duly completed
application alongwith Demand Draft of Rs 55,09,800/-towards the
earnest amount within a period of fifteen days. The petitioner on
19/10/2011 submitted a Demand Draft for the aforesaid amount to the
MIDC alongwith the requisite "Blue Application" duly filled-in. On the
aforesaid basis, the MIDC on 15/11/2011 issued an order of allotment
in favour of the petitioner subject to various terms and conditions. The
amount of premimum was stated to be Rs.9902/- per square meter. The
amount of premium was stated to be Rs 9902/- per square meter. One
such condition was that the agreement of lease was required to be
signed within a period of thirty days from receiving the balance
occupancy premium amount. This amount was to be paid by the
petitioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the
order of allotment. Another condition was that the petitioner was
required to commence production within a period of two years from the
date of possession with a stipulation that no further extension would be
granted. The petitioner on 18/11/2011 sought clarification about the
rate of premium on the ground that the same was not as per Circular
dated 18/03/2008. The petitioner thereafter on 20/12/2011 had
BDP-SPS
4 WP-9865-2014 .doc
preferred an appeal before the Joint Chief Executive Officer, MIDC
raising a grievance that the premium charged ought to have been at the
rate of Rs 7,700/- per square meter and not Rs 9,077/- per square
meter. It sought to rely upon the Circular dated 18/03/2008 in that
regard. On 17/04/2012, the MIDC issued a communication to the
petitioner stating therein that in terms of the order of allotment the
balance consideration was to be paid within a period of thirty days of
receiving the order of allotment. Same had however not been paid.
The petitioner was thus called upon to deposit balance amount by
14/05/2012.
3] On 14/05/2012, the petitioner deposited the balance amount of
Rs 61,94,400/- with the MIDC. There being delay of about one
hundred and fifty days in depositing the balance amount, the MIDC on
17/05/2012 called upon the petitioner to pay interest at the rate of Rs
15.25% being an amount of Rs 3,90,800/-. The petitioner accordingly
deposited an amount of Rs.36,190/- on 18/06/2012. On 28/06/2012
the MIDC called upon the petitioner to take possession of Plot No.J-
394/1 on 15/07/2012. On such possession being taken, a possession
receipt was executed on the said date. The petitioner thereafter
submitted a proposal for approval of its plans to the Executive Engineer,
MIDC. Since various documents demanded by the MIDC were not
submitted, the proposal of the petitioner came to be rejected on
30/09/2013. Being aggrieved with the demand of premium at
Rs.8251/- per square meter which according to the petitioner was
against the Circular dated 18/03/2008, this writ petition has been
filed.
4] By an order dated 01/08/2018, this Court passed an interim
BDP-SPS
5 WP-9865-2014 .doc
order directing the MIDC to execute agreement of lease in favour of the
petitioner by incorporating relevant clauses therein. It was further
directed that after execution of the lease agreement, it would be open
for the petitioner to complete the necessary formalities and seek
sanction of its plans.
5] Mr. Pralhad Paranjape, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner was holding Plot No.205-J Block
and had sought to expand activities of its Establishment. Its application
for seeking allotment of another plot had been favourably considered by
the Land Allotment Committee. In terms of the expansion policy
Circular dated 18/03/2008, it was incumbent upon the MIDC to apply
the prevailing land rate at the industrial area with 10% additional
charges for the plot allotted to the petitioner. Being the only applicant
for Plot No.394-1, J Block, the petitioner was liable to pay the
prevailing land rate of Rs 7000/- per square meter with 10% additional
charge being Rs 700/-. Thus the petitioner was liable to be charged
Rs 7700/- per square meter and not Rs 9077/- per square meter as per
the offer letter dated 05/10/2011. The offer letter was contrary to the
expansion policy Circular dated 18/03/2008, the Board decision of the
MIDC dated 18/04/2011 and decision of the Land Allotment Committee
dated 24/08/2011. The MIDC had thus acted arbitrarily in the matter
and had sought to demand higher premium from the petitioner. Various
representations made by the petitioner were not considered resulting in
delay in finalising the premium rates. It was further submitted that
MIDC failed to enter into the agreement of lease without any justifiable
reason. It was only on 15/07/2012 that the petitioner was put in
possession. As a result, grave prejudice as well as financial loss was
caused to the petitioner. Relying upon the decisions in Tata Iron and
BDP-SPS
6 WP-9865-2014 .doc
Steel Company Limited and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others ,
(2018) 12 SCC 107, Sharayu Ashok Gokhale and others vs. Nagpur
Municipal Corporation, Nagpur and others , 2022 (5) ABR 320 and
Ramon Distilleries Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra and Another , 2022 SCC
OnLine Bom 11766, it was submitted that the MIDC ought to be
directed to enter into the lease agreement at the rate of Rs 7700/- per
square meter.
On the stand taken by the MIDC that disputed questions were
involved, it was submitted that there was no such dispute on facts.
Since the MIDC was a State entity, the writ petition as filed was liable to
be entertained on merits and the prayers as made ought to be granted.
6] Ms. Shyamali Gadre, learned counsel appearing for the MIDC
relied upon the affidavit-in-reply and opposed the writ petition. She
submitted that the petitioner was an existing lessee of the MIDC and
hence had full knowledge of the policies and Circulars issued by the
MIDC. The demand of premium was made from the petitioner on the
basis of expansion Circular dated 18/03/2008. Since the highest bid
received was at the rate of Rs 8251/- per square meter, the same was
taken into consideration for determining the amount of premium
demanded from the petitioner. The MIDC had acted in accordance with
the offer letter dated 05/10/2011 given to the petitioner. If the terms
mentioned in the offer letter were not acceptable to the petitioner it was
not entitled to any relief whatsoever. It was further submitted that the
petitioner accepted allotment of Plot No.394/1 J Block without any
protest. Hence terms of the offer letter were binding on the petitioner.
The petitioner failed to abide by the time frame stated therein.
Possession of the said plot was also accepted and hence it was not
BDP-SPS
7 WP-9865-2014 .doc
permissible for the petitioner to thereafter contend that higher rate of
premium was being claimed by the MIDC. It was thus submitted that
the parties were governed by the terms of the contract entered into and
it was for the petitioner to either acccept them or reject them. Hence
no discretionary relief be granted to the petitioner. To substantiate her
contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in
Suganmal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others , AIR 1965 SC 1740,
Union of India & Others vs. M/s Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram , [1970] 2 S.C.R.
594, Jawahar Lal Burman vs. Union of India , 1961 3 S.C.R. 769,
Punjab National Bank and Others vs. Atmanand Singh and Others ,
(2020) 6 SCC 256 and the judgment of the Supreme Court dated
21/11/2001 in Appeal (Civil) No.7932 of 2001 ( State of Bihar and
Others vs. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Limited ). It was thus submitted
that there was no merit in the writ petition and it was liable to be
dismissed.
7] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and
with their assistance we have perused the documents on record. At the
outset, it may be stated that the petitioner seeks to rely upon the offer
of allotment made on behalf of the MIDC on 05/10/2011 to the
petitioner by which Plot No.394-1 was offered to the petitioner subject
to the conditions laid down in the MIDC Circular dated 18/03/2008.
The relations between the parties are thus contractual in nature and
keeping the said aspect in mind, the entitlement of the petitioner to the
relief sought in the writ petition would be required to be adjudicated.
The principal grievance raised by the petitioner is that the plot
allotted to the petitioner for expansion ought to have been at the rate of
Rs 7700/- per square meter and not Rs 8251/- per square meter. This is
BDP-SPS
8 WP-9865-2014 .doc
for the reason that the petitioner was seeking expansion of its
Establishment and therefore as per the prevailing policy rate of Rs
7700/- per square meter ought to have been applied. On the other
hand, according to the MIDC, the auction rate of the industrial plots in
March, 2011 was Rs 8251/- per square meter and hence on that basis
such offer was made to the petitioner. The MIDC seeks to rely upon its
Circular dated 18/03/2008 in that regard.
8] A perusal of the Circular dated 18/03/2008 indicates that if more
than one application is received seeking allotment of a plot then the
rate at which the highest offer is received would be the rate to be
applied for such allotment. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit-in-reply filed
on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2, it has been stated as under:-
"8) I say and submit that after issuance of Circular dated
8th August 2008 approximately an area admeasuring
26615 square meters was available for allotment in
Pimpri Industrial Area. I say and submit that as there
were more than one applicant seeking allotment of
additional plots in Pimpri Chinchwad Industrial area, the
Corporation invited tenders for allotment of additional
plots in March 2011. In the auction process, the highest
rate submitted by the successful bidder was Rs 8251/- per
square meter. I say and submit that in accordance with
the Expansion Circular, the highest auction rate of Rs
8251/- was considered by the Corporation as the
applicable rate and accordingly the same rate was applied
to other allottees of the Corporation including the
Petitioner for allotment of additional plots for expansion
BDP-SPS
9 WP-9865-2014 .doc
purpose in Pimpri Industrial Area."
9] After this affidavit-in-reply was filed, there is no rejoinder filed on
behalf of the petitioner denying the averments made therein. It is seen
from the record that it has been the consistent stand of the MIDC that
the rate of Rs 8251/- per square meter was the rate applied for
allotment of plots in terms of the Circular dated 18/03/2008. The
petitioner has sought to rely upon the internal notes of communication
between officials of the MIDC to contend that the plot in question ought
to have been allotted at the rate of Rs 7700/- per square meter. We
however find that a clear stand has been taken by the MIDC that
Rs 8251/- per square meter was the highest rate offered and the same
had been applied to the petitioner. The communication dated
23/11/2011 issued by the Regional Officer of the MIDC also clarifies
this position. In the light of such specific communication issued to the
petitioner coupled with the statement made on oath in paragraph 8
referred to hereinabove, we do not find that there could be any reason
to disregard the same. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India we do not find that any further exercise to
resolve these factual aspects can be undertaken. This is after
considering the ratio of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for
the parties.
10] We therefore find that the allotment letter issued to the petitioner
pursuant to the offer letter dated 05/10/2011 requires the petitioner to
pay an amount of Rs 8251/- per square meter with additional 10%
amount thus totaling Rs 9077/- per square meter. Hence, for this
reason, we do not find that the relief sought by the petitioner vide
BDP-SPS
10 WP-9865-2014 .doc
prayer clause (b) can be granted.
11] Insofar as prayer clause (c) is concerned, it may be noted that by
the order dated 01/08/2018, the MIDC was directed to execute an
agreement of lease in favour of the petitioner by incorporating relevant
clauses therein. After that order was passed, there is no further
material placed on record by either of the parties to indicate execution
of the agreement of lease between them. Hence for want of further
factual details as regards the events that have transpired after
01/08/2018, the relief as prayed for vide prayer clause (c) cannot be
granted.
12] For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find that there is any case
made out to grant relief to the petitioner. The writ petition therefore
stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
BDP-SPS
