New Malak Colours Through Proprietor Hakimuddin Sajjad Hussain Malak v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 wp 3801.18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3801 OF 2018 NEW MALAK COLOURS, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, HAKIMUDDIN SAJJAD HUSSAIN MALAK

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Surve Hemant AGP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. A. R. Kale Advocate for Respondents No. 2 to 4 :

Mr. S. S. Dande ...

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

DATE:

th MARCH, 2019 PER COURT :

1.

Mr. Surve, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted plot D - 49/5 admeasuring 800 Sq. Metrs. for industrial purpose. The petitioner applied for allotment of additional plot D - 54/2 admeasuring 2100 Sq. Metrs. at Avdhan MIDC area Dhule. The said application was not considered by the respondent and the respondent proceeded for e-bid. The

2 wp 3801.18 petitioner had only applied for plot no. D-54/2. Clause 3 of the Circular dated 03.06.2014, permits direct allotment of plot for expansion of business. The petitioner sought plot for expansion of business. The respondent could not have gone for e-bid process. The persons who are shown to have participated had never applied.

2.

Mr. Dande, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Clause 3(A) of Circular dated 03.06.2014 would apply if the plots are sought for expansion of business, such as, mega projects, business involving foreign investments and regarding distribution of defence material and not for small scale industries. There were other persons also, as such, e-bid was resorted to. 3.

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties. 4.

Clause 3 (A) and (B) of Circular dated 03.06.2014 reads thus -

3 wp 3801.18 "३.

जययऔददगगककतयततलभखडयचकवयटपपभरझयलकअसकल, अशय औददगगककतयमधयकउपरदक(१) व(२) नसयरमहयमखडळयचययतयबययत आलययमनळकवयटपयसउपलबधझयलकलकभखड अ.

उददगगवसतयर/ पयधयनयसदरयखयलतभखडवयटपयसयठतगनशशचत ककलकलययधदररयनसयरफकउददगगवसतयरगकखवयपयधयनयययसदरयखयलतउदय. महयरयषशयसनमयनयतयपयपगवशयलपकलप, परककयगनखतवरभकआररयरक उददजक, सखरकरगवभयगयकररतययखतसयमनगतपनरगवरयरकउददजकफफचयनरन गलदबल५००/ इकफनफगमकसटयइमस५००कखपनतइतययदतकररतय गवनयगनगवदयसरळपदततनकवयटपकरणययतययवक.

ब.

उददगगवसतयर/ पयधयनयसदरयखयलतभखडवयटपकरणययसयठतमयगरत नसलययसअसकभखडइतरउददजकयखनयगनगवदयपदततनकवयटपकरणययत ययवक."

5.

The restrictions are given in Clause 3 (A) as to direct allotment. The petitioner does not fall in illustrations given in Clause 3 (A) of Clause 3 of Circular dated 03.06.2014.

6.

The plot which is alloted to the petitioner and the plot which the petitioner seeks allotment are also not adjacent to each other.

7.

The other persons who had applied pursuant to

4 wp 3801.18 the e-bid also have their industrial plots.

8.

The petitioner certainly could not have claimed the allotment of the additional plot as of a right. E-bid process is the step to get the most competitive purchaser of the plot and would also eradicate arbitrariness.

9.

Considering the above, we are not inclined to grant relief to the petitioner. The Writ Petition, as such, is disposed of. No costs.

[A. M. DHAVALE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] marathe