Bombay High Court Dismisses/Allows Petition Challenging MIDC's Allotment of Amenity Plots and Regulations 2009 – Judgment Truncated. Incomplete text prevents determination of outcome.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 134
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, an industrial association of small scale industries, filed writ petitions challenging the allotment of open spaces or amenity plots within the Jalgaon industrial area by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) for industrial purposes. The petitioner contended that under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, open spaces designated in the development plan were to be kept vacant for amenity purposes and could not be allotted for industrial use without first converting them through the procedure under Section 115 of the MRTP Act. The petitioner relied on a previous undertaking given by MIDC in an earlier writ petition that it would maintain open spaces, but MIDC subsequently decided to allot these plots again. The petitioner also challenged the Revised Development Control Regulations, 2009, arguing that the State Government and MIDC lacked authority to frame them. During arguments, the petitioner's counsel submitted that MIDC had not followed due process, and that the Regulations did not provide any conversion mechanism. The court had earlier granted interim protection on 13.06.2012 directing status quo regarding open spaces. The judgment was reserved on 20.12.2018 and pronounced on 29.03.2019. The provided text includes only the petitioner's submissions and procedural background; the court's analysis and final decision are not included in the excerpt.

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) can allot open spaces/amenity plots for industrial purposes without following the procedure under Section 115 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; and whether the Revised Development Control Regulations, 2009, framed by the MIDC, are valid.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The provided judgment text is incomplete; it ends with petitioner's submissions. The final decision of the court is not included.

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 173

Writ Petition No. 5069 of 2010 with Civil Application Nos. 12431/2012, 10788/2015, 2192/2017, 1815/2018; Writ Petition No. 7259/2012; Writ Petition No. 1824/2016; Writ Petition No. 10100/2018

2019-03-29

S. V. Gangapurwala, R. G. Avachat

Mr. A. G. Talhar for petitioner; Mr. S. G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for respondents 1,3,4; Mr. P. M. Shah, Senior Advocate for respondent 2/MIDC; Mr. S. S. Dande for respondents 5,6; Mr. S. H. Tripathi for respondents 9-18; Mr. V. D. Sapkal for intervenor; Mr. S. S. Deve for respondents in connected petitions; Mr. P. D. Bachate for petitioners in WP 1824/2016 and 10100/2018

The Industrial Association of Small Scale Industries, Through its Chairman, Shyam s/o Vasudev Agrawal (in WP 5069/2010); also petitioners in connected writ petitions.

State of Maharashtra, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Collector Jalgaon, District Industries Center, Regional Officer MIDC, Area Manager MIDC, Joint Chief Executive Officer MIDC, Assistant Director of Town Planning, and private respondents 9 to 18 (Suresh Nandlal Talreja and others).

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking cancellation of allotment of open spaces/amenity plots for industrial purposes by MIDC, and challenging the validity of the Revised Development Control Regulations, 2009.

Remedy Sought

To quash the allotment of open spaces/amenity plots for industrial purpose by MIDC; to declare the Revised Development Control Regulations, 2009 as invalid.

Filing Reason

MIDC decided to allot open spaces/amenity plots for industrial purposes despite an earlier undertaking not to do so, and without following the procedure under Section 115 of the MRTP Act, 1966.

Previous Decisions

In an earlier writ petition, MIDC undertook not to allot amenity plots, and the High Court took note of the undertaking. Subsequently, MIDC again decided to allot the plots. The present writ petitions were filed. On 13.06.2012, the court granted interim protection directing status quo regarding open spaces.

Issues

Whether MIDC can allot open spaces/amenity plots for industrial purpose without following the procedure under Section 115 of the MRTP Act, 1966. Whether the Revised Development Control Regulations, 2009, framed by MIDC under Section 115 of the MRTP Act, are valid and within the authority of the State Government and MIDC.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that MIDC lacks authority to allot amenity plots for industrial use; open spaces are meant for amenity and are 'lungs' of the industrial area. Petitioner contended that before converting open space to industrial plot, MIDC must follow procedure under Section 115 of MRTP Act; no such procedure was followed. Petitioner submitted that the 2009 Regulations provide no mechanism for conversion, and reliance on a Circular requiring only 10% open space is misplaced; the approved layout shows more than 10% open space which must be maintained. Petitioner argued that the earlier undertaking by MIDC not to allot amenity plots is binding, and the subsequent decision violates it. Petitioner relied on Division Bench judgment in WP 5964/2008 and Supreme Court's Ispat Industries case. Petitioner distinguished Owens-Corning Indian Ltd. v. MIDC as it dealt with Section 37 of MRTP Act, not Section 115.

Judgment Excerpts

The High Court in the said writ petition observed that the Corporation has categorically undertaken that it will maintain open spaces for reserved area as per the Rules and Regulations. As per Subsection 4 of Section 115 of the MRTP Act it is for the Special Planning Authority and the State Government to take care of the entire Development Plan.

Procedural History

Petitioner is an industrial association. Earlier writ petition filed where MIDC undertook not to allot amenity plots; High Court noted the undertaking. Subsequently, MIDC decided to allot open plots. Present writ petitions filed (WP 5069/2010 and connected) challenging the allotments and the 2009 Regulations. On 13.06.2012, interim status quo order passed. Judgment reserved on 20.12.2018 and pronounced on 29.03.2019. The provided text only covers petitioner's submissions; the court's analysis and final order are not included.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961: Section 2(e), Section 64
  • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Section 37, Section 115
  • Revised Development Control Regulations, 2009:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal by Cooperative Bank Challenging Auction Sale of Liquidated Society's Property — No Undervaluation or Procedural Irregularity Found. The Court held that the auction sale conducted by the Liquidator under the Maharashtr...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes High Court Order Allowing Revival of Tainted Tender in HIMUDA Case — Independent Committee Found Gross Irregularities in Tender Process. Court Held That High Court Could Not Dispose of Writ Petition by Merely Accepting Stateme...