1. In view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, the writ petition is admitted.

2. Rule.

3. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule is made returnable forthwith.

4. By this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging an allotment of the plot bearing No.T22 in the Chikalthana Industrial area which plot admeasures 4950 Square Meters. That allotment is made by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, a Government of Maharashtra undertaking, in favour of Respondent No.5.

5. The brief facts, which led to the filing of this writ petition, are that the 1st Respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The 4th Respondent is the Corporation established under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are officers of Respondent No.4 and incharge of promoting and encouraging Industrial Development. The 5th respondent is the allottee of the plot referred to above. The 6th Respondent is the Minister for Industries, Government of Maharashtra.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that, it is a company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1946. It is a leading service provider to global investment community for various information. It is in the business of tracking information pertaining globally listed companies through use of information technology and the process enables various stake holders to get access to timely and accurate information in transparent manner. After narrating the nature of the business activities, what has been stated is that the petitioner was founded and incorporated in 2005. It has grown from a strength of 25 employees to 200 in a span of 7 years. The company has operations at Navi Mumbai and Aurangabad.

7. The Respondent No.2 (MIDC, for short) acquired a huge tract of land for developing to as a software technology park. That area is reserved for software technology park. The petitioner has a unit at Chikalthana Industrial Area since 2008. The business of the petitioner was growing enormously and that is why for its expansion it required additional area/ space. It submitted an application to the regional office of MIDC on 3rd June, 2009. The petitioner pointed out that it is an operational and functional unit and for its growing needs and expansion plan it requires additional space. It, therefore, applied for allotment of an existing stall located at plot No.22. The petitioner pointed out that it is ready and willing to pay the charges and the costs of the land as per the norms. The petitioner also pointed out the object and purpose of the Act.

8. After submission of the application, the petitioner was informed that the plot will be auctioned within a short period. The Petitioner was directed to submit an application as and when the plot will be auctioned. In view of this suggestion, the petitioner was under an impression that the plot will be auctioned shortly. However, some estate agents were interested in the plot. That is how the petitioner submitted one more letter on 7th July, 2009. It requested the Respondent No.2 MIDC that there are lot of plots which are not being utilised. Similarly, there are plots allotted not to genuine users. The petitioner, therefore, suggested a criteria and one of which was that existing operational units in the vicinity should be given preference. The petitioner, thereafter, addressed another reminder finding that its earlier letter dated 7th July, 2009 (Annexure-C) was not responded at all. The reminder is dated 9th October, 2009 and copy of which is at Annexure-D.

9. Again, on 5th November, 2009, the petitioner submitted an application in respect of this very plot No.T22 located in software technology park, Chikalthana M.I.D.C. The petitioner pointed out that since the plot is to be allotted by tender process to eligible information technology companies, that it should be given a preference in allotment.

10. The petitioner was consistently pursuing t