Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vikrant Industries, a sole proprietorship, filed a writ petition under Articles 226, 14, and 19 of the Constitution of India challenging the allotment of plots in the Latur MIDC area to respondents 4 to 9. The petitioner also sought a direction to MIDC to allot one acre of land from a plot allegedly earmarked for him by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer on 22.4.2004 for a commercial showroom, and an industrial plot at old rates. The respondents included the State of Maharashtra, MIDC, Vilasrao Deshmukh Foundation, and other allottees. The petitioner argued that the allotments were arbitrary and that he had a legitimate expectation based on the earmarking. The court, after hearing all parties, held that the petitioner failed to establish any legal right to the plots. The earmarking by an officer did not bind the corporation, and the allotment process was not shown to be arbitrary. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Allotment of Plots by MIDC - The court examined whether the allotment of plots to private respondents was arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Held that the allotment process was not arbitrary and the petitioner failed to establish any legal right. (Paras 1-10)
B) Administrative Law - Legitimate Expectation - Earmarking of Plot - The petitioner claimed that a plot was earmarked for him by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer. Held that such earmarking does not create a vested right and the corporation is not bound by it. (Paras 5-8)
C) Property Law - Allotment of Industrial Plots - MIDC Policy - The court considered the MIDC's policy for allotment of plots. Held that the policy was followed and no mala fides were established. (Paras 3-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the allotment of plots by MIDC to the private respondents was arbitrary and illegal, and whether the petitioner has a legal right to allotment of a plot based on an alleged earmarking by an officer.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Judicial review limited to arbitrariness
- No vested right in allotment of plots
- Earmarking by officer not binding on corporation
- Policy decisions not interfered with lightly
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (02) 6
WRIT PETITION NO. 670 OF 2009
S.C. Dharmadhikari, Ravindra V. Ghuge
Shri Pradip Deshmukh, Shri H.A.Joshi, Shri G.K.Thigale (Naik), Shri S.G.Aney, Shri Kiran Gandhi, Shri S.S.Dande, Shri V.D.Hon, Shri N.P.Patil Jamalpurkar, Shri Nitin Choudhary, Shri B.R.Loya, Shri S.S.Bora
The State of Maharashtra, The Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, The Regional Officer, MIDC Latur, Vilasrao Deshmukh Foundation, Smt. Leela Anil Agrawal, Kavita Agro Industries, Pruthvi Prakashan Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vilasrao Dagdojirao Deshmukh, Shri Dilip Dagdojirao Deshmukh
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging allotment of plots by MIDC and seeking allotment of plots to petitioner.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of allotments to respondents 4 to 8 and direction to MIDC to allot plots to petitioner.
Filing Reason
Petitioner aggrieved by refusal of MIDC to allot plots and alleged arbitrary allotments to others.
Issues
Whether the allotment of plots to private respondents was arbitrary and illegal?
Whether the petitioner has a legal right to allotment based on alleged earmarking?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that allotments were arbitrary and that he had a legitimate expectation based on earmarking.
Respondents argued that the allotment process was fair and the petitioner had no vested right.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the petitioner failed to establish any legal right to the plots. The earmarking by an officer does not create a vested right and the corporation is not bound by it. The allotment process was not shown to be arbitrary.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard.
Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.
By this petition filed under Articles 226 read with 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the allotment of plots to Respondent No.4, Respondent No.5, Respondent No.6, Respondent No.7, Respondent No.8 and Respondent No.9 in the Latur MIDC Area and the additional MIDC Area at Latur.
Procedural History
The petition was filed in 2009, heard on February 24, 2014, and judgment pronounced on February 27, 2014.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 19, Article 226
