[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Arvind Arjun Chaudhari vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 7 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:9478-DB
(1) wp5585.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5585 OF 2018
Arvind Arjun Chaudhari .. Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. Kunal Kale, Advocate for
the petitioner.
Ms. R.P. Gour, AGP for the respondent-State.
Mr. Ashish Gabhale h/f. Jay & Co., Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 6.
Mr. D.P. Palodkar, Advocate for respondent No.7.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 25.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.03.2026
ORDER [PER : KISHORE C. SANT,J.] :-
01. Challenge in this petition is mainly to the allotment of a plot
in the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation [for short
"MIDC"] area bearing No.T-30, admeasuring 350 sq. mtrs. situated in IT
Park, MIDC, Chikalthana, Aurangabad in favour of respondent No.7. It is
also further prayed that the said plot be allotted to the petitioner or his
wife for starting his business/IT center. Presently, the petitioner is in
(2) wp5585.18
service with the MIDC. However, he had made the application, when he
was a partner in one proposed partnership firm which wanted to start a
business on the said plot.
02. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra, respondent
No.2 is the Minister, respondent No.3,4,5 and 6 are the Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation established under the Companies
Act. It is established for the purpose of facilitating establishment of
planned industrial estate for setting industries. Plots in industrial area are
allotted to the persons interested in establishing industrial units.
03. The petitioner, who is a partner in a firm registered with the
District Industries Center at Aurangabad, prayed for allotment of plot in
the name of his proposed firm by name M/s. Sai Infotech, as a small
scale industry in Software Technology park, Chikalthana. On 19.04.2005
they filed an application for allotment of plot having size of 675 sq. mtr.
By communication dated 03.05.2005, it was informed that no any plot is
available for allotment in the Software Technology Park at Chikalthana.
The petitioner thereafter again submitted a proforma application for
allotment of industrial plot for M/s. Sai Infotech by paying requisite
process fees, as per the order issued by Regional Office - respondent
(3) wp5585.18
No.6. On 24.06.2005, the office of the Executive Engineer informed the
Regional Office on inspection as regards proposed two plots in the
application. No objection was given to allot plot No. P-13. A condition
was to keep vacant piece of land of 15 mtrs, as transmission line of 132
kv was going nearby the said plot. P-13 is now given number as Plot No.
T-30. The petitioner even submitted an application to the Minister and
requested for giving directions to the Authorities for allotment of plot.
Said representation/application was given on 16.12.2005. On
08.11.2006 he sent a reminder. He submitted one more letter on
04.12.2006 with Dy. CEO (IT), Mumbai. Head Office sought information
about availability of the plot from the Regional Office.
04. In 2010 the partnership firm came to be registered in the
name of M/s Cybless Infotech with office of Registrar of Companies of
present respondent No.7. On 20.09.2010, the said Cybless Infotech
requested for allotment of plot. Since no plot was allotted, respondent
No.7 approached Minister and requested for plot. She also filed one
petition bearing Writ Petition No.2985 of 2012 and challenged allotment
of one another plot No. T-22 to one M/s. Akshada Infotech. Said petition
came to be disposed off by vacating interim relief in favour of respondent
No.7. Plot No. T-22 came to be allotted to M/s. Akshada Infotech.
(4) wp5585.18
Internal noting was prepared on the request of the petitioner, expressing
that it is not possible to allot the plot in favour of respondent No.7 as per
the policy prevailing then. Respondent No. 7's application came to be
rejected on 07.09.2012. The petition, therefore, came to be filed in the
Court bearing Writ Petition No. 9279 of 2012, challenging allotment of
plot No.T-22 to Akshada Infotech. This Court subsequently allowed Writ
Petition No. 9279 of 2012 with costs and set aside the allotment in favour
of M/s. Akshada Infotech. In 2014, the petitioner was informed that the
plots are to be allotted by floating tenders and no direct application can
be entertained. Plot No. T-22 was taken into possession pursuant to
order passed by this Court. Respondent No.7, thereafter, filed application
on behalf of M/s. Om Web Cafe Services. Thereafter, she submitted one
representation to the Minister of Transport. It is alleged that the Minister
of Transport without having any authority, wrote to the office of MIDC to
take decision according to law. It is alleged that it is on his letter now
plot is allotted to respondent No.7, without following any tender process
etc. Thus, on these grounds, this petition is filed.
05. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Deshmukh forcefully argued that
when the petitioner had filed application and prayed for allotment, no
heed was paid to his request stating that the plots are to be allotted by
(5) wp5585.18
following tender process and no direct application can be entertained,
whereas in the case of respondent No.7, same Corporation has now
allotted the plot without following tender process. This allotment is
clearly made under the influence of the Minister for Transport. When the
MIDC comes under the Ministry of Industries, there is no reason for the
respondent No.7 to approach the Minister for Transport. The Minister of
Transport without having any portfolio, directed the Authorities to allot a
plot. Under his influence plot is now allotted. He has taken this Court
through the office note prepared showing that respondent No.7 is not
entitled to get the plot. He submits that, however, thereafter, inspite of
such notice plot is allotted to respondent No.7.
06. During the arguments, it transpired that now the petitioner
has joined service in the MIDC and therefore cannot get any plot.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner, relied upon Rule 16 of the MIDC
Employees Service Regulations, 1970, which bars a person in service of
MIDC from carrying on business in the MIDC area. He thus submits that
for allotment of plot, there is no bar. On instructions, he submitted that
if plot is allotted, the petitioner is ready to resign from the service and
start business. His alternative submission was that the plot can be
allotted even to his wife, if plot cannot be allotted in his favour. It is
(6) wp5585.18
submitted that his wife has also filed an application for getting a plot. He
thus submits that on one hand the petitioner's request was not
considered stating that it can be done by following tender process and on
the other hand direct application is entertained of respondent No.7. He
thus prays for allowing the petition.
07. Learned Advocate for the MIDC opposes this petition. He
submits that there is no strict policy of giving plot only by following
tender process. The Corporation has power to consider proposal, fitness,
viability, need etc. and to allot the plot. The proposal of the petitioner
when received was not found to be fit and therefore the plot was not
allotted to the petitioner. As on today, when the petitioner is in service,
he cannot apply for allotment of plot.
08. Learned Advocate for respondent No. 7 - Mr. Palodkar at the
outset challenges locus of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner
cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. Application was filed by the
petitioner's wife after he joined service, however, that was filed for
canteen and not for IT purpose. There is no prejudice shown to the
petitioner. He further vehemently argued that the petitioner has
approached this Court with malafide intention. No case is made out
(7) wp5585.18
showing any arbitrariness or discrimination in the allotment of the plot to
respondent No.7. Under the Rules of MIDC, there is no bar to entertain
direct application from any person. He submits that the internal notings
of the office are of no consequence unless those are converted into order
and then the orders are communicated. He submits that the petitioner
happens to be an influential person. Even he met two MLAs to raise a
star question about the allotment of this very plot in the Assembly. Both
the MLAs are from different constituencies, who are not at all concerned
with Aurangabad MIDC. Even in the assembly it was shown that no
illegality is committed while allotting the plot. He relied upon Rule No.4
i.e. "Manner of disposal of land/open lands". He thus prays for dismissal
of the Writ Petition.
09. Learned AGP prays for passing appropriate orders.
10. This Court has gone through the submissions of the parties.
First question to be considered is as to whether MIDC could have
considered the application directly filed by respondent No.7. Rule 4 of
the MIDC Regulations, 1975 reads as under :-
(8) wp5585.18
"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 lands-
(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."
11. It is thus clear that the plot can be allotted even by directly
entertaining individual's application. The submission of the learned Sr.
Advocate that on one hand the petitioner was given a reply that the plot
would be allotted by following tender process and on the other hand they
have entertained the application submitted by an individual, does not
hold any water. There is nothing to show that if plot allotted to
respondent No.7 is cancelled, it is the petitioner who would be in a
position to get the said plot. The petitioner has relied upon Rule 16 of the
said Regulations. The Rule states that an employee of the Corporation
shall not do any business and thus plot could not have been allotted to
the petitioner. This Court finds that if a person is not allowed to carry on
business, in that case still allotting the plot would be totally against the
objective of the very establishment of the MIDC. Rule 16 clearly states
that when any employee is in service, he should not indulge into any
private trade, contract or business or profession either independently or
(9) wp5585.18
in direct or indirect partnership. He should not use his position to
support any business or any subsidiary. Thus, it is clear that now the
petitioner is in service and therefore he cannot start business or take
part in the commercial activity.
12. Further submission that, the plot can be allotted in the name
of wife of the petitioner as she had subsequently applied, also cannot be
considered as this petition is not by wife and she has not raised any
grievance against allotment of the plot to respondent No.7. So far as
office notings are concerned, learned Advocate Mr. Palodkar rightly relied
upon judgment in the case of Sethi Auto Service Station and Anr. Vs.
Delhi Development Authority & Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 180. In the
said case, it was held that the office noting in favour of any party does
not create any right or give any right to such party unless order is signed
and received by the said party. In this case this Court, therefore, cannot
accept argument of learned Sr. Advocate that nothing was made against
respondent No.7 and still plot was allotted to her. Office notings are only
for internal purpose to come to a decision and cannot be read by the
Court.
13. Considering overall submissions and the position as discussed
( 10 ) wp5585.18
above, this Court finds that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this
petition. There is no merit in the petition. No illegality is found in the
allotment of the plot to respondent No.7. This Court thus holds that this
petition deserves to be dismissed and the same stands dismissed with no
order as to costs.
[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
. After pronouncement of order, learned Advocate for the
petitioner seeks continuation of interim relief for a period of four weeks.
Said prayer is vehemently opposed by learned Advocate for the
respondents.
. However, considering that the interim arrangement is in force
since 2018, same is continued for a period of four weeks from today.
[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
snk/2026/Mar26/wp5585.18
