1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 985/2007 ( M/s Jayaswals Neco Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and others) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. .................................................................................................................................................................. CORAM: D.D. SINH A & Smt. V.A.NAIK , JJ. DATED: 25th January, 2008. *** Heard Mrs.Sushma J Singh, learned counsel for petitioner; Mr. M M Agnihotri, for respondents 2 & 3 and Mr. A.K. Choube, for intervenor. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner has applied for allotment of plot/land in MIDC Area Nagpur, vide application dated 1st June 2005, in view of the Resolution of MIDC dated 25.1.1994, which entitles the petitioner to claim allotment of piece of land/plot adjacent to the industry of the petitioner, on priority basis. It is contended that MIDC authorities have issued a public notice dated 4.1.2007 calling tenders for allotment of the said plot/land and, therefore, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, challenging the action of respondents of calling tenders, 2 which is inconsistent with the Govt. Resolution dated 25.1.1994 and claimed that as per the said Resolution it is the petitioner-industry which is entitled to get allotment done in its name, from MIDC authorities. 3. Mr. M M Agnihotri, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - MIDC authorities has submitted that the Resolution dated 25.1.1994 is no more in force after issuance of another Government Resolution dated 12.12.2006 issued by the MIDC, whereby the clause which gave right to the petitioner to claim allotment of adjacent land has been deleted from and, in its place, certain other clauses are inserted which permits the MIDC authorities to do allotment of land by calling tenders. Mr. Agnihotri, further, states that so far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned, pursuant to the public notice dated 4.1.2007 issued by MIDC calling tenders for allotment of land in question, the petitioner also submitted the tender and has participated in the whole process and, therefore, it is not now open for the petitioner to call in question the process undertaken by MIDC and is estopped from doing so. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that by another Resolution dated 22.8.2007 issued by MIDC, 3 the authorities have again reverted back to the old procedure contemplated in Resolution dated 25.1.1994 and, therefore, again the petitioner is entitled to get allotment done of the adjacent plot in its name from the MIDC authorities. 5. We have considered the contentions canvassed by respective counsel. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that when the public notice dated 4.1.2007 was issued by the MIDC whereby tenders were called for allotment of land/plot in question, the Government Resolution dated 12.12.2006 was in force which permitted the MIDC authorities to issue public notice for calling tenders for allotment of plot/land. If that is so, the public notice issued by MIDC authorities, according to us, is just and proper and very much sustainable in law and was not inconsistent with the Government Resolution dated 12.12.2006 which was in existence., Apart from that, the petitioner has submitted the tender pursuant to the public notice dated 4.1.2007 for allotment of plot/land. If that is so, it is very difficult for us to show indulgence at the behest of a person who did not challenge the tender process at the initial stage. On the other hand, participated in the said process and it is only 4 at the later point of time, approached this Court. On his short ground, in our view, the petition deserves to be rejected. 6. In the instant case, by virtue of the interim orders, the tenders could not be opened by the MIDC authorities. However, we direct the MIDC authorities to open the tenders and take appropriate steps according to law as well as procedure applicable in this regard in finalizing the same. 7. With the above observation, Writ Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare