High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
(11) WP/9493/2025+Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have made it clear before this Court that theallotment of commercial plots in pursuance of the said advertisementdated 26th July, 2025, is purely for plots covered under clause 6.3 ofchapter VI of the Land Disposal Policy pertaining to commercial, retailand Hospitality plots. All the applicants and if the petitioners proposedto apply, even the petitioners, can submit their applications and theirDPRs keeping this in mind that the plots are not for mixed land use butonly for land use as per Clause 6.3 of chapter VI of the Land DisposalPolicy.21.Since the petitioners have not suffered any prejudice asapplications of all the 12 applicants pursuant to the advertisementdated 09th April, 2025, were rejected, we find that the petitioners havefailed to make out a case for interference in the instant writ petitions.22.It is settled law that in tender and commercial matters, thewrit Court while exercising power of judicial review, does not sit inappeal on merits over the decision of the respondents, but the processfor arriving at the decision is tested to ensure that there is noarbitrariness.23.As noted herein above, we do not find any arbitrariness onthe part of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the present writ petitions and
Arguments
(1) WP/9493/2025+IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 9493 OF 2025WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8029 OF 2025 INWRIT PETITION NO. 9493 OF 2025Harmony Landspace LLP, Through Its Director Shri S. R. AtakareVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others…ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 9507 OF 2025Palmstone Hospitality LLP Through Its Partner Keshar Vashist Andhale And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Another…ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 9630 OF 2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8215 OF 2025Sumerurise Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director, Pavan Ganesh TammewarVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others…•Mr. Atul M. Karad, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP No. 9493 of 2025•Mr. S. S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP No. 9507 of 2025•Mr. D. P. Palodkar, Advocate h/f. Mr. Shantanu Ray, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP No. 9630 of 2025•Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in WP No. 9493 of 2025, Respondent No. 2 in WP No. 9507 of 2025 and Respondent No. 2 and 3 in WP No. 9630 of 2025•Ms. S. S. Joshi and Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGPs for Respondents/State inall petitions.… (2) WP/9493/2025+ CORAM : MANISH PITALE & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE : 04 AUGUST 2025ORDER (PER – MANISH PITALE, J.) :Since common issues are raised in these three petitions,Writ Petition No. 9630 of 2025 was taken on board along with the othertwo writ petitions listed for consideration today.2.The petitioners in these petitions are aggrieved by acommon E-mail / communication dated 116th May8th July 2025, issuedby respondent No.2 – Maharashtra Industrial Township Limited (MITL).By this communication addressed by respondent no. 2 to 12 entities,including the petitioners herein, who had applied for allotment ofcommercial plots in pursuance of advertisement 09th April 2025, issuedby respondent No.2, it was communicated that the land allotmentcommittee (LAC) as per the provisions of the Land Disposal Policy haddecided to reject all the applications, including those of the petitionersfor allotment of commercial plots in pursuance of the saidadvertisement.3.Since the petitioners are aggrieved by the contents of thesaid email, which are impugned in these petitions, it will be appropriatethat the contents thereof are reproduced. The contents are as follows : (3) WP/9493/2025+“Dear Sir / Madam,The Maharashtra Industrial Township Limited (MITL) had invitedonline applications for 14 (Fourteen) Commercial plots at Bidkin and6 (Six) Commercial plots at Shendra Industrial Area through onlinesubmission vide advertisement published in Lokmat, Lokmat Timesnewspapers all editions in Maharashtra and Times of India on 9thApril, 2025.As per provisions of the Land Disposal Policy, there is a LandAllotment Committee (LAC) consisting of Committee Members -Managing Director ... Chairman, Jt. Managing Director .... Member,City Planner .... Member, Chief Financial Officer ... Member and oneof the directors of NICDC (i.e. CEO, NICDC, VP, NICDC and CFO,NICDC). The Committee will be entrusted with the responsibility ofscreening all applications and allotting plots for various uses.Hence, all applications were placed before the Land AllotmentCommittee meeting held on 03.06.2025 at 11 a.m. for taking decisionon allotment of Commercial plots.During discussion about the project and Detailed Project Reports(DPRs), the Committee observed that all project reports wereprepared were more or less of same type i.e. Commercial Complex,Shops, Hotel, Hospital etc.Therefore, the Committee informed the applicants during meetingthat their DPRs were not project specific and seems to be of mixeduse like Commercial, Industrial as well as Public Semi Public use etc.However, the MITL has opened plots through advertisement forallotment of Commercial Plots. Hence, the DPRs were supposed tobe prepared and submitted to the MITL for Commercial use onlyinstead of mixed use.The Committee further informed all applicants that since their DPRswere not upto the mark and not only for Commercial activity for whichplots opened, the Committee is rejecting all 12 (Twelve) applications.The Committee also informed all applicants that the MITL will againopen commercial plots through advertisement shortly. Applicants canapply for plots with proper DPR which should be project specific andfor Commercial use only.Considering receipt of applications with DPR for multiple users, theCommittee was of the view to reject all applications received forallotment of commercial plots.In view of the decision taken by the Committee, your application forallotment of Commercial plot is hereby rejected. (4) WP/9493/2025+As per provisions of the land disposal policy, 5% token amount paidalongwith the application will be refunded to you excludingprocessing fees and applicable taxes thereon.MITL will again open commercial plots through advertisement shortly.The Applicant can apply for plot with proper DPR which should beproject specific and for Commercial use only.Regards,Maharashtra Industrial Township Limited.”4.The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as thelearned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 where ad-idemthat the allotment of commercial plots in pursuance of the saidadvertisement is in terms of the Land Disposal Policy at Exhibit “E” inWrit Petition No. 9630 to 2025. It is also an admitted position that afterthe impugned E-mail dated 18th July 2025 was issued, on 26th July2025, the respondent No.2 issued a fresh advertisement invitingapplications for 8 commercial plots, with the last date for submission ofapplications being tomorrow, i.e. 05th August 2025 till 05:00 p.m. In thiscontext, extreme urgency was projected on behalf of the petitionersand submissions were made to the effect that the impugned E-maildated 18th July 2025, rejecting all the applications for allotment of thecommercial plots, discloses complete non-application of mind andarbitrariness on the part of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 while takingsuch a decision.5.The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to thevarious clauses of the said Land Disposal Policy governing the present (5) WP/9493/2025+case and submitted that the ground regarding mixed use stated in theimpugned E-mail is contrary to the policy itself and hence, theimpugned communication deserves to be set aside and theapplications of the petitioners ought to be considered in pursuance ofthe aforementioned earlier advertisement dated 09th April 2025.6.Detailed submissions were made by Mr. Karad, learnedcounsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9493 of 2025,Mr. Thombre, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ PetitionNo. 9507 of 2025, Mr. Palodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner inWrit Petition No. 9630 of 2025.7.On the other hand, Mr. Shrirang Dande, learned counselappearing for contesting respondent Nos.2 and 3 made hissubmissions on the said Land Disposal Policy and he stated that theimpugned communication dated 08th July 2025, was based on aconsidered view taken by the LAC in the light of the fact that most ofthe applicants submitted Detail Project Report (DPR) on the mistakenbelief that mixed land use could be permitted on the commercial plots.In that light, after interaction with the applicants, the LAC thought it fitto reject all the applications and to issue fresh advertisement. It wassubmitted that none of the applicants, including the petitioners herein,had acquired any vested right in the process and since the decisionwas taken for all the applicants across the board, based on a proper (6) WP/9493/2025+interpretation of the Land Disposal Policy, the allegation of arbitrarinessor non-application of mind, is without any substance.8.It was submitted that the writ petitions deserve to bedismissed and that the petitioners are at Liberty to apply for allotmentfor commercial plots in pursuance of the subsequent advertisementdated 26th July 2025, issued by respondent No.2, the last date forsubmitting the applications being 05th August 2025.9.Learned AGP appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1.10.This Court has perused all the relevant clauses of LandDisposal Policy at Exhibit “E” in Writ Petition No.9630 of 2025, whichadmittedly governs allotment of plots and commercial plots asadvertised by respondent No.2. The basic ground on whichrespondent No.2, by the impugned communication rejected all the 12applications submitted in pursuance of the earlier advertisement dated09th April 2025, is that the applicants in their DPRs had proceeded onthe basis that the subject plots were meant for mixed land use. This,according to the respondents, was a misunderstanding of the mannerin which the commercial plots are allotted under the Land DisposalPolicy and hence, it was found that the applications of all the applicantsdeserve to be rejected and that a fresh advertisement was required tobe issued. (7) WP/9493/2025+11.In support of the said contention raised on behalf ofrespondent No.2, learned counsel appearing for the said respondent,referred to a chart concerning all the 12 applications, including thepetitioners on the basis of their respective DPRs. It was highlightedthat almost all the applications referred to proposed use for, inter alia,warehouses, factory sheds, hospitals and garages along with utilizationfor commercial purposes. It was submitted that all such DPRs wherefor mixed land use and during the meeting of the LAC with theapplicants, the said aspect was highlighted.12.A perusal of the Land Disposal Policy shows that Chapter -IV pertains to Land Allotment Policy and under clause 4.1 pertaining tocategories of land use, distinct categories, such as industrial,residential, commercial, retail, hospitality, healthcare facility,warehouses and storage etc. have been identified. Clause 4.2.2provides for allotment by on-application process. Chapter – VI of theLand Disposal Policy pertains to allotment policy for differentcategories. In this chapter, plots are identified as per land use. Clause6.1 pertains to industrial plots, clause 6.3 pertains to Commercial, retailand hospitality plots, clause 6.4 pertains to social amenities (educationand healthcare facilities). Clause 6.10.5 pertain to plots orwarehousing and storage places. Apart from this, various clausespertains to other such users for plots. It is relevant to note that such (8) WP/9493/2025+classification is clearly identified in chapter – VI of the Land DisposalPolicy pertaining to allotment for different categories of plots.13.In this context when the contents of the advertisementdated 09th June 2025, are perused, it is found that the respondent No.2invited applications for 14 “commercial plots” at Bidkin and 6“commercial plots” at Shendra through online process. We findsubstance in the contention raised on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and3 that as per the said advertisement, applications through onlineprocess were invited for commercial plots relatable to clause 6.3 ofchapter – VI of the Land Disposal Policy pertaining to commercial,retail and hospitality plots. Accordingly, the applicants were expectedto submit their applications and their DPRs limited to use of the plotsonly for commercial, retail or hospitality purposes.14.But a perusal of the documents on record shows that outof the 12 applications, almost all the applications had submitted DPRsshowing proposed mixed land use. The applicants proposed mixedland use such as use for hotel with warehouse, commercial spaces forretail shops for office spaces and hospitality with hotel warehouseslogistics with commercial complex, thereby indicating that none of theapplicants and their DPRs were based on specific commercial land useonly of the plots. The details placed on record on the basis ofdocuments relied upon by of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 indeed show (9) WP/9493/2025+that the applicant had misunderstood the limited purpose for which thecommercial plots could be used as per the said Land Disposal Policy.15.It is in this backdrop, that the contents of the abovequoted email dated 18th July, 2025 need to be appreciated. Thecontents thereof refer to the fact that the LAC informed the applicantthat the DPRs indicated mixed land use, thereby mixing up land use forcommercial with industrial as well as social amenities like healthcarefacilities, instead of submitting DPRs for commercial use only.16.It is in this background that the LAC of respondent No. 2took a decision to reject all the 12 applications and to issue a freshadvertisement for allotment of commercial plots, so that properapplications could be made with detailed DPRs for only commercialuse of the plots.17.We find that since the said test was applied across theboard to all the 12 applicants in pursuance of the advertisement dated9th April 2025, it cannot be said that any particular applicant was eithersingled out for discriminatory treatment or that any of the applicantswas favoured in any manner. We also find lack of substance in thecontention specifically raised on behalf of the petitioners in writ petitionNo. 9493 of 2025 that such a decision was taken to favor some partythat had not even applied for the said commercial plots. (10) WP/9493/2025+18.We find that even if the petitioners in writ petition No. 9493of 2025 could claim that at least its application fell within clause 6.3.1 ofthe land disposal policy, pertaining to Commercial, retail and Hospitalityplots, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were well within their rights to reject allthe applications as the other 11 applicants had all mistakenly appliedas if the plots could be utilized for mixed land use. It cannot be claimedthat the impugned communication dated 18th July, 2025 was eitherarbitrary or based on total non application of mind towards LandDisposal Policy.19.In any case, as noted herein-above, none of the 12applicants had any vested right because the applications stoodrejected even before the bids were opened. We are in agreement withthe contention raised on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that thedecision to reject all the 12 applications was in the light of the nature ofthe DPRs submitted showing mixed land use, despite the fact that theadvertisement was purely for commercial plots.20.In any case, fresh advertisement issued immediately on26th July, 2025, invited applications for allotment of commercial plots,with the last date being 05th August, 2025. The petitioners herein andothers interested in allotment of such commercial plots can very wellapply pursuant to the said advertisement dated 26th July, 2025.
Decision
(12) WP/9493/2025+hence the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writpetitions are dismissed.24.Needless to say, that the petitioners are at liberty to applyfor commercial plots in pursuance of the advertisement dated 26th July,2025 issued by respondent No. 2.25. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [ Y.G. KHOBRAGADE ] [ MANISH PITALE ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/