Yash Nandkishor Sahare v. The Administrator City And Industrial Development Corporation Cidco Aurangabad

1 Sr936 WP818.2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

WRIT PETITION NO. 818 OF 2018 Yash S/o Nandkishor Sahare ... Petitioner

VERSUS

The Administrator, City and Industrial Development Corporation ... Respondent ..........

Mr Ashwin V. Hon, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs Vaishali N. Patil-Jadhav, AGP for respondent/State .............

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.

DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2018.

ORDER:

1.

Mr Hon, the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner had applied for allotment of land pursuant to the advertisement of the CIDCO inviting applications for allotment of plots. The petitioner and his mother applied for plot No. 122, N-3, CIDCO. The petitioner deposited the earnest money of Rs. 13,47,136/-. The father of the petitioner Nandkishor Sahare had also filed application along with the mother of the petitioner namely Pushpa Nandkishor Sahare for allotment of plot No. 29, N-1, CIDCO. They were also found to be successful applicants. The petitioner and his parents Nandkishor Sahare and Pushpa Sahare made joint

2 Sr936 WP818.2018 representation to CIDCO authorities for allotment of plot No. 122, N3, CIDCO instead of Plot No. 29, N-1, CIDCO. According to the learned counsel, there was no impediment for the respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioner.

2.

Mrs. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, the learned counsel for respondent submits that, as per condition No. C-7, though applications for multiple plots are permissible, however, while drawing lots, if the applications is successful bidder then the remaining applications for other plots would automatically stand cancelled.

3.

In view of the fact that the father and mother of the petitioner were found entitled for Plot No. 29, N-1, CIDCO, the application of the petitioner in which the mother was a common applicant in both the applications could not have been considered. 4.

In light of the above, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. [ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE JUDGE Punde