A right of pre-emption can be forfeited through inaction; the petitioner's claim was dismissed as he had voluntarily abandoned his interest in the plot.

JUDGMENT :

Sandesh D. Patil, J.

1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal. Mr. A.I. Patel, learned Addl. G.P, waives notice on behalf of the Respondent No.1-State. Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Counsel, waives notice on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3- MIDC. Mr. Veer Kankariya, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the Respondent No.4.

3) The Petitioner has approached this Court inter alia seeking quashing and setting aside of the allotment Order dated 8^th October 2024, made in favour of the Respondent No.4 in respect of Plot No.H- 145/2, admeasuring 1500 sq.mtrs., situated in MIDC Area, Ambad, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said plot’). The prayer is also made to direct the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to allot the said plot in favour of the Petitioner.

4) It is the contention of the Petitioner that he was allotted the Plot No.H-146/2, admeasuring about 3775 sq.mtrs. in MIDC area, Ambad, Nashik, and accordingly agreement to lease was registered in his favour. Since the said plot was not sufficient for expansion of his business, the Petitioner made an application to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for allotment of additional plots, bearing Plot No.OS-73, admeasuring about 3289 sq.mtrs., Plot No.OS-74 admeasuring 1964 sq.mtrs. and Plot No.H-145/2, admeasuring about 1500 sq.mtrs., totally admeasuring about 6753 sq.mtrs. The said application is at Exhibit ‘A’ to the Petition. Thereafter, the Petitioner found that Plot No.H-145/2, was allotted to Shri Chintamani Edutech through Mr. Manoj Pingale. Mr. Manoj Pingale had some dispute with the MIDC, and therefore, the later filed a Petition, bearing Writ Petition No.7915 of 2022 in this Court. It is the Petitioner’s contention that the Respondent No.2 informed the Petitioner, that the allotment of Plot No.H-145/2 (the said plot), cannot be made in favour of the Petitioner, till the writ petition filed was decided and therefore, the Petitioner modified his request and dropped Plot No.H-145/2 and made a demand for allotment of Plot Nos. OS-73 and OS-74 only, vide letter dated 8^th March 2022. That letter is at Exhibit ‘B’ to the Petition. The Respondent No.2, thus upon application of the Petitioner dated 8^th March 2022, allotted Plot Nos.OS-73 and OS- 74 to the Petitioner and created separate Plot, total admeasuring about 4000 sq.mtrs. and renamed it as the Plot No.H-146/2A on 1^st July 2022.

5) Mr. Damle, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contends that in February, 2025, when the Petitioner came to know that the Respondent No.2 had illegally allotted the said Plot No.145/2, in favour of the Respondent No.4, filed an Application under the RTI. It is further argued by Mr. Damle that the allotment of the said plot in favour of the Respondent No.4, is illegal and void, as the same is made without giving intimation to the Petitioner, who had a right of pre-emption over the said plot. Mr. Damle, argued that an undertaking was taken from the Respondent No.4 that he will manufacture only electric vehicle parts and that the same would also be sold only to the electric vehicles manufacturers. He contended that the Petitioner later learnt that on 26^th February 2025, this Court had dismissed Writ Petition No.7915 of 2022, filed by Mr. Manoj Pingle, the Petitioner therein. A copy of the Order dated 26^th February 2025, passed by this Court is annexed by the Petitioner at Exhibit ‘F’ to this Petition. The Petitioner found that vide allotment Order dated 8^th October 2024, the said Plot was allotted in favour of the Respondent No.4. The Petitioner, therefore, sent a legal