-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3349 OF 2008 Universal Prime Aluminium Limited ... Petitioners versus Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Birendra Saraf with Ms. Rajlaxmi Mohandas, instructed by M/s. ALMT Legal, for the petitioners. Smt. Deepa Chavan with Mr. Kiran Gandhi, instructed by M/s. Little & Company, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vinay Sonpal, AGP, for respondent No.2 CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JUNE 08, 2010. P.C. By way of this petition, the petitioners are raising a claim which is too stale to be entertained in connection with the allotment of a plot. The petitioners were offered a plot by respondent No.1 as back as in the year 1991 as the petitioners wanted to have a plot of land for its business expansion i.e. Aluminium collapsible tubes and metal containers. The respondent No.1 accepted the request of the petitioners and offered a plot to the petitioners admeasuring 8490 sq.mtrs. in the industrial area on various terms and conditions. As per condition No.8, the petitioners were clearly informed that if the petitioners fail to deposit the earnest money deposit within fifteen days from -2- the date of the offer letter, it will be construed that the petitioners are not interested in the said proposal. As per clause 11, the petitioners were informed that they are required to construct a road equal to the road of the Corporation as per the plan of the Corporation at its own costs. It seems that the petitioners thereafter went on making correspondence with the Corporation in this behalf. According to the Corporation, the petitioners did not deposit the earnest money amount and the contract never came to light as it was only at the offer stage. Mr. Saraf, the learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently submitted that the first respondent being a Public Corporation should have acted in a reasonable manner and should have handed over the plot to the petitioners and that the Petitioners are ready and willing to pay the remaining amount, that they are required to pay. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Mrs. Deepa Chavan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Corporation, submits that the Corporation had informed the petitioners in the year 2006 that if the petitioners are willing to purchase the plot at the price prevailing during the said period i.e. 2006, the Corporation may consider the claim of the petitioners in connection with the allotment of the said plot. 3. In our view, the dispute raised by the petitioners in this petition -3- cannot be adjudicated by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is required to be noted that the claim of the petitioners is too stale now to be adjudicated as the original offer made by the Corporation was of the year 1991 and more than 20 years have passed by this time. The petitioners now cannot compel the Corporation to allot the plot at the same rate at which it was offered in the year 1991. More than twenty years have elapsed and even the rates have also gone up to a considerable extent as on today. Even the learned counsel for the petitioners is also not in a position to point that there was a concluded contract entered into between the petitioners and the first respondent. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had not paid the amount which was required to be paid. The petitioners have not complied with the terms of offer of the first respondent. Apart from the said aspect, even assuming that there is a breach of contract on the part of the respondents, this is not a case in which this Court is required to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our view, the petitioners should have taken prompt action by filing appropriate proceedings within a reasonable time. Instead, the petitioners entered into correspondence with the first respondent all throughout. The learned counsel for the first respondent states that it was merely an invitation to offer. However, it is not necessary to examine this aspect as even otherwise the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. 4. Considering the aforesaid aspect, this is not a case in which this -4- Court would like to entertain this petition in connection with the dispute arising out of the so-called offer made by the first respondent to the petitioners for purchase of plot. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as indicated above, we do not find any substance in this petition. The petition is accordingly rejected. Notice discharged. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.