1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3064 OF 2008 (M/S. RAMBHAD ELECTRO MAGNETIC PRODUCT Vs M.I.D.C. ) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : JULY 15, 2008. 1. Heard Shri Vyawahare, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The writ petition is directed against communication dated 05.06.2008, whereby the petitioner is communicated by the respondent that by their earlier letter dated 02.03.2000 the petitioner was informed that the site in question was allotted to him and the petitioner was directed to pay/ deposit amount of Rs.1,91,400/-. It is also informed by the impugned communication that as per Circular No.MIDC/G-28/2716, dated 19.04.1994 the allotment letter gets automatically cancelled if the payment is not made with delayed charges 2 within 180 days. In such contingency, by the impugned communication the petitioner is informed to hand over the shed which was not legally handed over to the petitioner by M.I.D.C. and therefore, the occupation of the petitioner is illegal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that there was dispute about fixation of the amount and therefore, the petitioner was not aware, what was the exact amount, the petitioner was required to pay to M.I.D.C. towards allotment of the shed in question. It is, therefore, contended that in such situation the petitioner cannot be blamed for non-payment of the amount within stipulated period of 180 days, therefore, the action of the respondent is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that in the year 2006 the petitioner came to know the amount to be deposited with the respondent towards allotment of the shed in question. 4. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case, the 3 petitioner has not disputed the fact of receipt of letter dated 02.03.2000 issued by M.I.D.C. Copy thereof is annexed with the petition at Annexure-5 (Page-22). We have perused the contents of the letter, in the said letter the petitioner was specifically informed that the shed in question was allotted to the petitioner subject to payment of Rs. 1,91,400/-. It is also not in dispute that if the said amount is not paid within a period of 180 days, as per concerned circular, the allotment letter gets automatically cancelled. 5. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the petitioner did not pay the said amount within the stipulated period and, therefore, the action of the respondent, according to us, is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE 4 RR.