SANTOSH SUDAM BHALERAO v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Constitutional Validity of MIDC's Priority Allotment Policy: Online Applications, Transparency, and Economic Policy Deference.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:34556-DB
Decision Date: 08-12-2025
List of Laws
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; Article 14 of the Constitution of India; The Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961; Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975
- Facts: The petitioner, claiming to be a partner in M/s Shree Pratiksha Industries, sought allotment of open spaces in Chikalthana MIDC Industrial Area, Aurangabad. The petitioner's firm had applied for allotment of open spaces Nos. 8 and 15, designated for agro equipment manufacturing and warehousing. The petitioner alleged that despite prior applications, the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) favored later online applications from respondents 7 to 9. The petitioner contended that the MIDC online portal was malfunctioning, justifying offline applications, and that MIDC selectively entertained offline applications.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the decisions of the Minor Modification Committee (MMC) and the Land Allotment Committee (LAC) of MIDC, which allotted the open spaces to respondents 7 to 9. The petitioner sought quashing of these decisions and a direction to MIDC to allot the same spaces to him.
- Issue: Is the MIDC's policy of priority allotment and online application, without public advertisement, constitutionally valid under Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Did MIDC act arbitrarily or discriminatorily in rejecting the petitioner's offline applications and allotting the land to respondent No. 9?
- Holding: The Bombay High Court held that the MIDC's policy of priority allotment and online application is constitutionally valid. The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no arbitrariness, discrimination, or mala fides in the allotment process.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the MIDC policy is founded on reasonable classification (thrust sector investors meeting specified criteria), anchored in the economic and industrial policy of the State, and prescribes a clear procedural framework. The shift to an online system promotes transparency and accountable governance. The Court emphasized that economic policies are entitled to a greater degree of judicial deference and should not be struck down unless they are clearly violative of constitutional provisions or manifestly arbitrary or irrational. The petitioner's applications were incomplete and submitted offline, rendering them ineligible under the prevailing policy. The Court found no evidence of mala fides or collusion in the allotment to respondent No. 9, whose application was complete and compliant with the policy. The Court cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Natural Resources Allocation, In re, to support the view that the State has the prerogative to choose the method of distribution of its resources, provided it is fair, transparent, and non-arbitrary. The Court also relied on Bhrastachar Nirmoolan Sangathana v. State of Maharashtra, which upheld MIDC's power to make allotments by entertaining direct applications, provided the allotments are made in accordance with regulations and are not arbitrary or mala fide.
🔒 For Members Only