Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar:
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has observed that there is no strict rule that public property must always be allotted only through auction. The court dismissed a petition challenging the allotment of two plots in the Chikalthana Industrial Estate (CIE).
Santosh Bhalerao, the petitioner and a partner in M/s Shri Pratiksha Industries, had submitted an offline application to the MIDC office for Plot Nos. 9 and 15 in CIE for setting up an agricultural equipment manufacturing unit. Later, preference was given to applications submitted through the online process, and the plots were allotted accordingly. Upset that Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) did not allot the plots to him despite his earlier application, Bhalerao approached the bench.
The petition was heard by the bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten Venegaonkar. On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that although agricultural equipment manufacturing is a ‘priority sector’, MIDC ignored his earlier application and instead considered the later online applications of Respondents 7 to 9. This allotment was alleged to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and against the e-tendering policy. The petitioner also argued that allotting plots based solely on individual applications without public notice or auction violated Article 14 of the Constitution (Right to Equality).
MIDC’s counsel informed the court that Bhalerao’s application was incomplete and offline, and therefore rejected as per rules. He also did not challenge that rejection. As per MIDC policy, only online applications are considered valid for plot allotment. Since Respondent No. 9’s application was complete and eligible, the plot was allotted to him.
After hearing both sides, the court noted that MIDC has the authority to allot plots either through auction or through direct applications. As long as the policy is transparent and reasonable, the court cannot intervene. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. Adv. Shrihari Aney and Adv. S S Dande represented MIDC during the hearing.