← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/5033/2017dismissedrule discharged

Naval S/O Nandlal Agrawal, Proprietor Of M/S Naval Agro And Food Products, Akola v. The Managing Director And Office Incharge, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai

2019-01-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravi K. Deshpande,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Vinay Joshi2 pages

Order 2801wp5033.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 5033/2017.

Naval Nandlal Agrawal -VERSUSThe Managing Director and Office Incharge MIDC and others. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri S.V. Sohoni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE & VINAY JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : JANUARY 28, 2019.

Heard.

2.

An application for allotment of plot made in the year 2012, was considered, and it was proposed that the petitioner may be offered a plot, provided that he produces a memorandum of understanding with the District Industrial Center.

3.

Petitioner has in paragraph no.4 of his petition has stated that he attended the meeting on 21.11.2012. It is the case of respondent MIDC, that the petitioner was informed to produce memorandum

Order 2801wp5033.17 of understanding, but, he failed to produce the same, and therefore, the offer letter was not issued to him. This is denied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who submits that there was no such communication received from the respondents to bring memorandum of understanding.

4.

We are not entering into the controversy as to whether such memorandum of understanding was demanded or not. The fact remains that from 2012 to 2016, the petitioner has been making correspondence with the authorities concern, but, has not approached this Court. It is now informed to us that only three plots are now lying vacant, and the same has been advertised, and the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the auction.

5.

In view of this, we do not find any reason to entertain this petition. The same is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.