Dismissed

Rubicon Formulations Pvt.Ltd. Thr. Its Director v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Mar 2017WP/5074/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged allotment of industrial plot by treating it reasonable that carving of additional area was made out of the plot and allotted to another company. The court found that the action of respondents was not unreasonable and the writ petition was devoid of substance and dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was found to be devoid of substance.

Rubicon Formulations Pvt.Ltd. Thr. Its Director Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

901 WRIT PETITION NO. 5074 OF 2014

¶4

RUBICON FORMULATIONS PVT.LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR

¶5

VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Talhar Ajay G.
Ms. RP Gour, AGP for Respondents:1;
Mr. Sadanand S.deve For R/2 to 4;

¶7

Mr. SB Gastgar, Adv. For Resp.No.5.

¶8

CORAM: R.M.BORDE &

¶9

P.R.BORA,JJ.

¶10

DATE : 21st MARCH,2017.

¶11

PER COURT

¶12

1)Heard.Thepetitionertenderedan

¶13

application for allotment of 5,500 sq.mtrs. of
industrial plot. Along with the Blue Application, a

¶14

detailed project report, indicating his actual

¶15

requirement of the plot is to the extent of 5250 sq.

¶16

mtrs., is submitted. Accordingly, after detailed

¶17

scrutiny of the DPR, the Land Allotment Committee in

¶18

its meeting held on 4.4.2013, decided to allot the
land admeasuring 5,500 sq. mtrs. to the petitioner.

¶19

The letter of allotment was issued on 20.8.2013 on

¶20

condition of submission of blue application for
allotment of land sanctioned by the Land Allotment
Committee. The petitioner submitted the letter dated

¶21

¶22

22.8.2013 along with the duly filled blue application

¶23

form to MIDC. The plot area needed by the petitioner
is 5,500 sq. mtrs. The break up of the total plot
area for production building is 30 m x 40 m; whereas
for office store and other ancillary building the
area shown is 30 m x 40 m. Thus, total requirement
of the petitioner for the industrial plot was 2400
sq.mtrs. While actually allotting the plot, the MIDC
had alloted an area to the extent of 5,462 sq.mtrs,
which, in our opinion, clearly meet the requirement
of the petitioner.

¶24

2)The petitioner objects to carving of the
additional area of 500 sq. mtrs out of the plot and
allotting the same to Respondent No.5. The size of
the plot admittedly is to the extent of about 5,962
sq. mtrs. Since the demand of the petitioner is for
5,500 sq.mtrs under the application tendered by him
to the authority, according to us, the petitioner has
no legal right to claim additional area and question
allotment in favour of Respondent No.5. Respondent
No.5 has been allotted a separate area out of the
same plot to the extent of 500 sq.mtr for the
industrial purpose.

¶25

¶26

3)Prima facie, we do not find that the action

¶27

of the respondents - authorities is unreasonable so
as to call for interference in exercise of its extra-

¶28

ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The petitioner raised the
grievance in respect of utilization of the GCR, which
grievance can be raised before MIDC and shall not be
looked into by the Planning Authority.

¶29

4)In our considered opinion, no interference
is called for in the present writ petition. The writ
petition is devoid of substance and the same is
dismissed.

¶30

bdv/

Rubicon Formulations Pvt.Ltd. Thr. Its Director v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubicon Formulations Pvt.Ltd. Thr. Its Director v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Prabhakar Gade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gokul Kashinath Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Grampanchayat Pethshivani through Its Member Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Iliyas Malik Qalander Malik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Nathesingh Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sudarshan Sundarlal Bihani and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another