Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenged the decisions of the Minor Modification Committee and Land Allotment Committee of MIDC to allot Open Spaces Nos. 8 and 15 in the Chikalthana MIDC Industrial Area, Aurangabad, to respondent Nos. 7 to 9. The petitioner, claiming to be a partner in M/s. Shri Pratiksha Industries, asserted that the firm had applied for the same spaces earlier, with applications dated 24.05.2023 and 25.08.2023, proposing investments in agro equipment manufacturing, a thrust sector entitled to priority. Despite the alleged priority and earlier applications, MIDC ignored them and considered online applications of respondents 7-9, which were later in time. MIDC rejected the firm’s applications as incomplete and submitted offline, while the petitioner contended that the online portal was non-functional. The petitioner alleged discrimination, arbitrariness, and violation of Article 14, and contended that MIDC’s policy of online priority allotment without public advertisement or e-tender is unconstitutional. The petitioner relied on a circular dated 26.09.2016 requiring e-tender and public advertisement, and on precedents including Real Team Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing transparency in disposal of public property. MIDC defended its actions, citing the statutory framework under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (especially Section 39) and the Land Disposal Regulations, 1975 (Regulations 4 and 6), which permit disposal either by public auction or by entertaining individual applications. It argued that the petitioner’s offline applications were incomplete and not in the prescribed form, and that the online portal was functional. During the proceedings, a preliminary issue of maintainability arose because the petition was filed by the individual partner and not by the partnership firm, and the court observed that, ordinarily, such a petition would not be maintainable. However, given the broader policy challenge, the court entertained the petition to the limited extent of examining MIDC’s allotment policies. The judgment was reserved on 09.10.2025 and pronounced on 08.12.2025, but the provided text ends prior to the court’s final decision, so the ultimate holding is not included in the extracted materials.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction - Locus Standi of Partner - Maintainability of Petition - Constitution of India, Art. 226 - The petition was filed by an individual claiming to be a partner of the firm that applied for allotment; the firm itself did not institute proceedings nor was authorization shown. The court observed that the petition would ordinarily not be maintainable for lack of locus standi, but decided to entertain it to the limited extent of examining the broader policy challenge. (Para 1)
B) Constitutional Law - Disposal of Public Property - Transparency and Equality - Constitution of India, Art. 14; Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, Sec. 39; Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975, Regs. 4, 6 - The petitioner challenged the allotment of open spaces without public advertisement or e-tender, arguing that the online priority system violates Art. 14. MIDC contended that Reg. 4 permits disposal by entertaining individual applications, and that its policy is valid. The court noted the settled principle that public property should ordinarily be disposed of through auction or tender, and is examining whether the MIDC policy withstands constitutional scrutiny. The matter involved interpretation of statutory provisions and precedents requiring transparency. (Paras 4-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition is maintainable at the instance of an individual partner where the application for allotment was made by a partnership firm? Whether the allotment of open spaces by MIDC to respondents 7-9 without public advertisement or e-tender is arbitrary and violative of Article 14? Whether MIDC's policy of priority allotment based on online applications is lawful?
Law Points
- Locus standi of partner of unregistered firm to file writ petition
- statutory provisions of MIDC Act and DLR
- Article 14 and transparency in disposal of public property
- priority in allotment based on seniority of application
- requirement of public advertisement/e-tender for plot allotments
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (12) 14
WRIT PETITION NO. 13929 OF 2023 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5708 OF 2025
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, Hiten S. Venegavkar
Mr. B. L. Sagar Killarikar, Mr. M. B. Sandanshiv, Mr. A. R. Kale, Mr. Shrihari Aney, Mr. S S. Dande, Mr. A. M. Karad, Mr. A. S. Golegaonkar, Mr. Swapnil Patil, Mr. N. S. Shah, Mr. S. S. Sarde
Santosh s/o Sudam Bhalerao
The State of Maharashtra, The Chief Executive Officer MIDC, The Joint Chief Executive Officer MIDC, The Regional Officer Aurangabad MIDC, The Chief Planer MIDC, Technical Advisor MIDC, Vinayak V. Andhale, Vidhya Prafulla Bafna, Gauri Ashish Zawar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging decisions of MIDC Minor Modification Committee and Land Allotment Committee allotting open spaces to private respondents, alleging arbitrariness and seeking allotment to petitioner.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks quashing of the MMC and LAC decisions and direction to MIDC to allot the open spaces to him (or his firm).
Filing Reason
Petitioner claims his application for the open spaces was prior in time but ignored in favor of later applications, and that MIDC policy violates principles of natural justice and Article 14.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner's offline applications were rejected by MIDC on 07.07.2023 and 29.08.2023. The MMC and LAC took decisions on 21.09.2023 and 25.09.2023 allotting the plots to respondents 7-9. No prior court proceedings mentioned.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable at the instance of an individual partner where the application for allotment was made by a partnership firm?
Whether the allotment of open spaces by MIDC to respondents 7-9 without public advertisement or e-tender is arbitrary and violative of Article 14?
Whether MIDC's policy of priority allotment based on online applications is lawful?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The firm’s applications were prior in time and belonged to a thrust sector; offline applications must be accepted due to portal non-functioning; MIDC entertained offline applications of others; the allotment to respondents 7-9 violates Art. 14 and circulars requiring e-tender; the LAC gave hearing to respondents 7-9 but not to petitioner, indicating bias.
Respondent MIDC: The petition is not maintainable as filed by individual, not firm; offine applications were incomplete and not in prescribed form; the online portal was functional; the Land Disposal Regulations permit disposal by entertaining individual applications without auction/advertisement; the policy is valid and within statutory powers.
Judgment Excerpts
The present writ petition, however, has not been instituted by the said firm; instead, it has been filed by the petitioner in his personal capacity. The petition is conspicuously silent on whether the partnership firm is duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and whether the firm or its partners have authorized the petitioner to institute these proceedings on its behalf.
In our considered view, such a petition, filed by an individual without demonstrating due authorization from the partnership firm, would ordinarily not be maintainable and could be rejected on this ground alone. Nevertheless, since the matter also raises a broader challenge to the policies adopted by the MIDC in making allotments of its plots without recourse to public advertisement or auction, we have deemed it appropriate to entertain the petition to that limited extent.
The circular dated 26.09.2016, which revises the land allotment process in light of the “Ease of Doing Business” policy, contemplates allotment of plots by the e-tender process and requires public advertisement of available plots in newspapers and on the official website.
Sub-section (1) of Section 39 permits disposal of such land, with or without development, “to such person, in such manner, and subject to such terms and conditions as it considers expedient for securing the purposes of this Act”, subject to any directions issued by the State Government.
Procedural History
The petitioner (through firm M/s. Shri Pratiksha Industries) submitted applications for allotment on 24.05.2023 and 25.08.2023. MIDC rejected the applications on 07.07.2023 and 29.08.2023. The Minor Modification Committee met on 21.09.2023 and the Land Allotment Committee on 25.09.2023, allotting the open spaces to respondent Nos. 7-9. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging these decisions. The court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 09.10.2025, pronouncing it on 08.12.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: 226, 227, 14
- Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961: 14, 15, 16, 39
- Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975: 4, 6
