Javed Kasim Shaikh v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Industrial Secretary And Others
2025:BHC-AUG:17662-DB 960-WP-8187-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 960 WRIT PETITION NO. 8187 OF 2025 JAVED KASIM SHAIKH
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ....
Mr. Gautam Karne, Advocate h/f Mr. R. S. Wathore, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms Saie S. Joshi, AGP for the Respondent - State Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 ....
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 08.07.2025 PER COURT :- 1.
Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2.
The Petitioner by this Petition is seeking a direction against Respondent No.7 i.e. Regional Officer, Mahararashtra Industrial Development Corporation (M.I.D.C.), Aurangabad, not to allot plots in favour of Respondent Nos. 10 and 11. 3.
This is the second round of litigation instituted by the Petitioner before this Court. Earlier, Writ Petition No.3922 of 2024 was disposed of by order dated 16.04.2024, making the following observations:-
(( 2 )) 960-WP-8187-2025 "2.
The Petitioner is not able to follow the procedure of making an online application. The learned Advocate for the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) submits that the Petitioner has to go to the official website of the MIDC and has to fill the online form by following the onscreen directions. He further submits that, if such online application form is tendered by the Petitioner, the MIDC would consider the same strictly in accordance with it's procedure." 4.
The record shows that, subsequent thereto the Land Allotment Committee of the M.I.D.C., held its meeting on 11.07.2024, and after considering the applications submitted for allotment of plots at Waluj industrial area found that only two applicants could be allotted plots, while the applications of the others were rejected. 5.
All the applications of such applicants were received online and processed by the Allotment Committee of the Respondent M.I.D.C. There is nothing to show that in pursuance of the order dated 16.04.2024, the Petitioner applied online for allotment of plot. 6.
When specific queries were put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner failed to apply online for allotment of plot, the only response was that whenever the petitioner accessed the website of the respondent, M.I.D.C., to submit the online application, the website showed as "off."
(( 3 )) 960-WP-8187-2025 7.
We are unable to appreciate the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to rely upon the communication dated 03.08.2024 addressed to the Respondent M.I.D.C. wherein it was claimed that whenever attempt was made to submit application online, the application was not accepted. There is nothing in the form of any screenshot or otherwise to support these vague allegations made on behalf of the Petitioner. There were as many as six applicants including Respondent Nos.10 and 11, whose applications were received online by the Respondent M.I.D.C. and eventually, the Land Allotment Committee of the Respondent M.I.D.C. in its meeting held on 11.07.2024, found it fit to allot the plots to Respondent Nos.10 and 11, while rejecting the applications of the other four online applicants.
8.
We find no merit in the present Writ Petition and hence, it is dismissed.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ MANISH PITALE, J. ] SMS