The court affirmed the constitutional validity of the MIDC's priority allotment policy, emphasizing that online applications and fair process must apply uniformly, without arbitrary distinctions among applicants.

JUDGMENT :

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the decisions taken in the meetings of the Minor Modification Committee (MMC) on 21.09.2023 and the Land Allotment Committee (LAC) of MIDC on 25.09.2023, whereby open spaces bearing Nos. 8 and 15 in the Chikalthana MIDC Industrial Area, Aurangabad, came to be allotted to respondent Nos. 7 to 9. The petitioner seeks quashing of these decisions and also direction to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (“MIDC”) to allot the very same open spaces to him.

It must be stated at the outset that the applications for allotment of the subject lands were submitted not by the present petitioner in his individual capacity, but by a partnership firm operating under the name and style of M/s. Shri Pratiksha Industries. The present writ petition, however, has not been instituted by the said firm; instead, it has been filed by the petitioner in his personal capacity. The petition is conspicuously silent on whether the partnership firm is duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and whether the firm or its partners have authorized the petitioner to institute these proceedings on its behalf. In the absence of any challenge by the firm itself an independent legal entity to the rejection of its applications, a serious and fundamental issue arises with respect to the petitioner’s locus standi and the very maintainability of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at his behest. In our considered view, such a petition, filed by an individual without demonstrating due authorization from the partnership firm, would ordinarily not be maintainable and could be rejected on this ground alone. Nevertheless, since the matter also raises a broader challenge to the policies adopted by the MIDC in making allotments of its plots without recourse to public advertisement or auction, we have deemed it appropriate to entertain the petition to that limited extent. While addressing this larger issue, we shall also examine the applicability of the MIDC’s policies to the case of the petitioner, who asserts that he is a partner of the original applicant, M/s. Shri Pratiksha Industries.

Petitioners Case :-

2. MIDC is a statutory corporation constituted under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (“MIDC Act”), for the planned and accelerated development of industries within the State. It acquires, develops and disposes its land in notified industrial areas in terms of the MIDC Act and the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975 (“Land Disposal Regulations” or “DLR 1975”). Petitioner submits that Chikalthana Industrial Area, Aurangabad, is one such industrial estate and open spaces Nos. 8 and 15 form part of the layout of said area and were originally shown as open spaces, which were subsequently considered for conversion and allotment.

3. The petitioner claims to be a partner in a firm known