The government must act in a fair and just manner in the distribution of wealth, and any arbitrary distribution would violate the law of the land.

JUDGMENT

R.G. Avachat, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner is proprietor of "Tulsi Jelly Sweets". He is engaged in the business of production of jelly sweets. The production unit is situated on the Plot (D-29) in Additional M.I.D.C. Area, Jalgaon. The petitioner applied for grant of additional plot, being Plot No.D-13/1 and D/13-2 for expansion of his business. The respondent No.l is the State of Maharashtra in Industrial Development Department. The respondent No.2 is the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), while the respondent No.3 is the Regional Officer of MIDC, Dhule and respondent No.4 is Area Manager of MIDC, Jalgaon. The respondent No.5 is a Private Limited Company, doing its business on Plot No.D-60 in Additional MIDC, Jalgaon.

3. The petitioner, by this petition, has sought for the relief of quashing of order dated 13/9/2019, issued by the respondent No.4 Area Manager, allotting the Plot No.D/13-2 to the respondent No.5. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.l to 4 to allot the said plot/s to him for expansion of his business.

4. Shri Bachate, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the decision of the respondent MIDC to allot the plot to the respondent No.5 has been against its policy. The petitioner did comply with requirement of additional plot for expansion of business. The decision of the MIDC to defer the petitioner's claim is discriminatory and smacks of arbitrariness. According to him, the petitioner had never been informed about the alleged deficiencies in his application for grant of additional plot. As per the policy for grant of additional plot for expansion of business, applicant is required to consume not less than 60% of Floor Space Index (FSI) of his existing plot. The petitioner has consumed 95% FSI. Whereas the respondent No.5 has utilized not more than 40% of the FSI. When there are more than one claimants for one and the same plot, they are required to submit their bids in a sealed cover. The applicant, who is the higher/ highest bidder amongst the claimants, is supposed to be allotted the plot. The online status of the application of respondent No.5 disclosed it to have been rejected. Respondent No.5 was allowed to submit application offline and documents as well. The MIDC granted three of the applicants plots admeasuring double the area of their existing plots. The same is also inconsistent with the policy of the MIDC. Learned counsel took us through the relevant Circulars to point out as to how the conditions therein have been flouted by the MIDC itself. According to learned counsel, the order allotting the plot in favour of respondent No.5 deserves to be set aside. The petitioner deserves allotment of the plots bearing No.D-13/1 and D/13-2 for expansion of his business.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following authorities :

(1) (1996) 6 SCC 530 (Common Cause, a Registered Society V/s Union of India)

(2) (1979) 3 SCC 490 (Ramana Dayaram Shetty V/s International Airport Authority of India & ors.)

(3) (2011) 5 SCC 29 (Akhil Bharatiya Upbhokta Congress V/s State of M.P.)

(4) (2015) 4 Mh.L.J. 758 (Tanaji Jagdale V/s State Government of Maharashtra)

6. Shri Dande, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 to 4 would, on the other hand, submit that the petitioner does not have a vested right to claim a particular plot. Petitioner's application has not been rejected. It has simply been deferred since it was not complete in all respects. The petitioner was called upon to submit the necessary documents. He, however, failed to submit all the documents in time. The MIDC is prepared to grant the petitioner other plot.

7. Shri K.C. Sant, learned counsel for respondent No.5 would make submissions consistent with the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 to 4. He would further submit t