1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1585 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1585 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1585 OF 2008 Friends Engineering Works .. Petitioner V/s. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.M.P.Wamorkar i/b.M/s.Maravoor Wamorkar & Co.for the Petitioner. Mr.V.P.Malvankar, AGP. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . The Petitioner wants that a plot being plot No. J-(420)(A) admeasuring 1305 sq.meters be allotted to him. For the same purpose the Writ Petition No.3373 of 2007 was filed which was dismissed by this Court on 10th December, 2007, where in this Court passed following order : 2 "By this petition, the Petitioner seeks an order directing the Respondent-Corporation to allot a plot to the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner is holding adjacent plot. However, the Petitioner is not in a position to point out any statutory authority or even a policy decision which entitles the Petitioner to allotment of plot without auction being held. In our opinion obviously, the Respondent being instrumental authority and statutory authority, as a general rule, it cannot allow any plot without holding or inviting any public bid. . Petition is rejected." 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the material was not available with him when the first petition was dismissed. Thereafter, he obtained copy from other available sources under which the Petitioner is entitled to the allotment of the said plot. The Petitioner has filed this petition on the basis of the information which he has received after the order is passed in earlier writ petition which was material for the decision in the said writ petition. 3 Even if the Petitioners came to know of certain facts subsequent to dismissal of earlier petition even then he can not file a fresh petition agitating same grievance earlier. 3. The writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)