1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1143 OF 2007 Cool N Cool Spring Beverages Private Limited .. Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.H. Toor i/by M/s.Prakash Punjabi for the petitioner. Mr.N.P. Pandit, AGP for the respondent-State. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 12th March, 2008 DATED : 12th March, 2008 DATED : 12th March, 2008 P.C. : 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent No.3 be directed to allot the plot to the petitioner and to execute the sale deed in its favour and to act in accordance with the directions issued by the State Government. 2. At the very outset, the preliminary objection has been raised with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition qua respondent No.3. It is contended on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 that the respondent No.3 is a private company and no writ could lye against that company. It is also pointed out that the Government 2 vide its letter dated 21-5-2005 had written to the respondent No.3 to allot the plot to the petitioner, but the petitioner in response thereto vide letter dated 19-9-2005 informed that they are not able to take the said plot. Now it is a dispute between the subsequent allottee and the petitioner, which cannot be resolved in a writ petition. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the directions issued by the State Government are binding on respondent No.3 and they are expected to act in furtherance thereto and as such the writ would be maintainable and after writing of these letters, the petitioner had made representations and vide letter dated 30-8-2006 it was allowed that the sale deed to be executed in favour of the petitioner. 3. Be that as it may, it cannot be disputed that respondent No.3 is a private limited company and a writ is not maintainable in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Furthermore, such disputed question of fact and appreciation of evidence arising in the present case, it would not be proper for this Court to decide the rights and obligations of the parties under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. For the reasons aforestated, we dismiss this 3 petition in limine. Liberty to the petitioner to take such steps as may be permissible to him in accordance with law. No costs. CHIEF JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR, J.