2025:BHC-AS:35833-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 155 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 41 OF 2012 Bhrastachar Nirmoolan Sangathana ….Petitioner : Versus :

State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents Mr. Uday Warunjikar with Mr. Hrishikesh Nabar, Mr. Sumit Kate and Mr. Yash Jagdale, for the Petitioner.

Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader and Ms. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for State, Respondent Nos. 1 & 3.

Ms. Shyamali Gadre (Through VC) with Mr. Ashwin Kulkarni i/b Little &

Co., for MIDC, Respondent No. 2.

Mr. I. M. Khairdi, for Respondent No. 4.

Mr. Huzefa Nasikwala with Mr. Idris Balasinorwala, for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8.

Mr. Atharv A. Gidaye i/b Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade, for Applicant in Civil Application No. 41 of 2012.

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Reserved on : 12 AUGUST 2025 Pronounced on : 20 AUGUST 2025 JUDGMENT : (Per Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1) This petition is filed in public interest challenging allotment of various plots of land by Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 to 25.

2) Petitioner claims to be a social organization and a public trust set up with the objective of eradicating corruption. Petitioner No. 2 is the President of Petitioner No.1. It is pleaded that Petitioner No. 2 came across a press report in newspaper where several plots of land were alloted by Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation to various persons closely related to the Ministers and Members of Legislative Assembly. Petitioner alleges that public land, intended for industrial development in the State, has been allotted at throwaway prices and on concessional rates, contrary to the provisions of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1961 (MIDC Act). Petitioner alleges that such allotment is made without conduct of tender process. Accordingly, the Petitioner has filed the present petition questioning the allotment of plots by MIDC to Respondent Nos. 4 to 25. 3) Dr. Warunjikar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the MIDC has made allotment of plots to political persons without conducting public auction. That public largesse cannot be distributed without grant of opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the bid process. That even if MIDC’s power of making allotment merely on the application is momentarily recognized, it was incumbent upon MIDC to issue at least public notice so that interested educational institutions which are in real need of land could apply for allotment, thereby creating a level playing field among similarly situated persons/entities. That the allotment in the present case is done by entertaining individual applications made by politicians and their appreciated persons. That such a course of action has resulted in a situation where entities having no educational activities in the concerned area are favored by allotting plots without any advertisement. He would rely upon judgments of the Apex Court in Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress Versus. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others¹, City Industrial Development Corporation through its Managing Director Versus. Platinum Entertainment and Others² and Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others Versus. Shashi Prabha Shukla and Another³ in support of his contention that government land cannot be allotted without implementing tender process.

4) Dr. Warunjikar would further submit that, in addition to the issue of allotments being selectively made to chosen individuals without implementing tender process, MIDC has extended further favours by allotting the lands at concessional rates. Lands are allotted for irrelevant purposes, such as setting up of monuments. He would therefore submit that the allotments made in favour of Respondent Nos.

4 to 25 deserve to be set aside.

5) Ms. Gadre, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2-MIDC would oppose