JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

“A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application;

B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may further be pleased to declare the approach of respondent Corporation towards the petitioner to be highly discriminatory, arbitrary, mala-fide, de hors the Circular Dated: 28/08/2012 Annexure A to the petition and bias towards respondent no.5 for extraneous consideration/s.

BB. YOUR LORDSHIPS may further be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, Order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the Circular dated 16/02/2016 (Annexure “K”) being ex facie illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational and de hors the object and purpose of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 and public policy to meet with the ends of justice;

C. YOUR LORDSHIPS may further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the allotment dated:31/01/2014 of plot admeasuring 400 Sq. Mts. from the plot No.362/2/B in favour of respondent no.5 being illegal, arbitrary, de hors the Circular dated; 28/08/2012 in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;”

2. Facts in brief indicate that the petitioner on 07.08.1997 has been allotted plot no.353 admeasuring 962.50 square meters in Kathvada GIDC. The petitioner has established an industry named Motisagar Utensils Industry in the said plot. The GIDC had a policy circular viz. circular dated 28.08.2012 which provided that with a view to give benefit to the existing industries, it was possible for an existing industry to get an adjacent plot. The petitioner accordingly made an online application for an adjacent plot bearing no.362/2/B on 23.09.2014 as it was situated behind the petitioner’s existing industry across the road by 20 feet. It is the case of the petitioner that while the application was pending GIDC came out with subsequent circular dated 15.03.2013 which made it further clear that the plot situated in the radius of 100 meters of the existing industry shall also be considered. By a circular dated 13.11.2013, it was also provided that while allotting the adjacent plot an additional premium of 30% will be charged. By a circular of 06.05.2015, it was decided that the allotment shall be on merits.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that before this application for online allotment could be approved, the GIDC with a view to facilitate the respondent no.5 issued a circular dated 14.07.2015, which provided that the provision of allotment of plots adjacent to the existing plot within the radius of 100 meters was done away with and was substituted by a provision that a plot which has a common plot would be treated as a plot adjacent to the existing plot. In light of this circular, the GIDC by a communication dated 29.07.2015 informed the petitioner that its application for allotment of adjacent plot was treated to have been filed.

4. It appears that the respondent no.5 which was also an occupant of plot nos.375 allotted in the year 2003 and having been allotted two subsequent plots of 400 meters and 2100 square meters viz. plot nos.362/2/A and 362/2/A in the years 2012 and 2014 applied for allotment of plot no.362/2/B3 i.e. 362/2/B. Having so applied, after having succeeded in applying for two other plots the application was initially rejected as per the file noting, it was subsequently sanctioned by a letter dated 02.03.2016 when a request was made by the respondent no.5 on 12.04.2015. This allotment of plot no.362/2/B to the respondent no.5 rather than allotting the same to the petitioner is a subject matter of challenge in this petition. Hence, the prayers.

5. Mr.P.J.Kanabar learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court to the policy circular dated 28.08.2012 and submitted that as per Clause-C of the policy, the ambit of the adjac