JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. Petitioner-Dhananjay Patil seeks allotment of Plot No. GP 66/2 and challenges allotment made in favour of Respondent No. 6 partnership firm-‘Healing Touch’. Petitioner himself is a partner in ‘Healing Touch’. He is aggrieved by allotment of plot by Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) in favour of the partnership firm and wants allotment in his own name. Petitioner is an allottee of the adjacent plot and therefore seeks to enforce right of first refusal. Petitioner also seeks enforcement of the directive dated 21st August 2014 issued by the Hon’ble Minister for Industries-cum-Chairman, MIDC.

3. Facts of the case are in a narrow compass. Petitioner is a medical professional. He runs Chetna Hospital on Plot No. GP-116, Sambhaji Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune. He desires to expand the operations of his hospital and accordingly, made an application for allotment of additional land to MIDC in the year 2005. He claims that allotment of additional land was approved by the Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC, however the allotment was actually not effected.

4. In the year 2010, the Land Allotment Committee of MIDC divided Plot No. AM-3 into two plots viz. Plot No. GP-66/1 and GP-66/2 both admeasuring 714 sq. mtrs. Both plots were reserved for construction of hospital. By letter dated 5th May 2010, Petitioner’s request for allotment of additional land for expansion was rejected. MIDC issued tender notice in April 2012 for allotment of two hospital plots bearing Nos. GP-66/1 and GP-66/2. In the list of plots available for allotment appended to the tender notice, a remark was made ‘first right of refusal to adjacent plot holders’. The upset rate for both the plots was fixed Rs.21,445/- per sq. mtrs. Petitioner objected to the tender process by submitting letters dated 12th June 2012 and 13th June 2012. Despite his objection, Petitioner submitted his bid for the Plot GP 66/2 in pursuance of the tender notice, but quoted rate of Rs.9,502/- per sq. mtr., which was lower than the upset price indicated in the tender notice. Respondent No.6, in which petitioner is a partner, also submitted it’s bids for both the plots, by quoting rate of 22,001/- for plot No.GP 66/1 and Rs. 22,005/- for plot No.GP 66/2. By his letter dated 11th June 2012, Petitioner withdrew his objection. Bids were opened on 11th June 2012 and Respondent No.6 was found to be highest bidder in respect of both the plots. Petitioner addressed e-mail dated 12th June 2012 exercising his right of first refusal in respect of plot No.GP 66/2 and offered the rate quoted by the highest bidder. However, it appears that no response was received by petitioner.

5. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6654 of 2012 seeking allotment of plot No.GP 66/2 at industrial rate prevailing in October 2006. Petitioner also sought cancellation of steps taken in pursuance of the tender notice. This court however rejected Writ Petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of suppression of facts. Petitioner filed Special Leave Petition No. 949 of 2013 challenging the decision of this court before the Apex Court which also came to be dismissed. Petitioner thereafter approached the Hon’ble Minister of Industries by making representation dated 25th February 2014 and 26th June 2014. The Hon’ble Minister addressed communication dated 21st August 2014 to Chief Executive Officer, MIDC for acceptance of Petitioner’s bid for allotment of plot No.GP 66/2 in his favour. However no further action was taken by MIDC for allotment of the plot. It appears that an opinion was obtained by MIDC inter alia on the ground that petitioner had withdrawn his objection to open the bids opining that petitioner cannot be allotted the plot in question. However instead of allotting plot to petitioner, MIDC issued allotment order dated 6th February 2015 allotting plot Nos. GP 66/1 and GP