Bombay High Court

VAIBHAV PRABHAKR KULKARNI @ VAIBHAV PRABHU RAJPUTversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: KISHORE C SANT SUSHIL M GHODESWAR

Holding

The Court held that the petitioner may be allotted the industrial plot at the existing rates if his technical bid is accepted, and the M.I.D.C. shall not invite further bids.

Summary

The petitioner, Vaibhav Prabhakr Kulkarni, sought allotment of a plot that had been purchased by his father in an auction conducted by a bank. The plot is designated for industrial use, but the petitioner submitted a proposal for a restaurant, a commercial activity, which the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (M.I.D.C.) rejected under its policy that only industrial proposals may be entertained for such plots. The petitioner argued that the policy should be applied as of the date of filing the petition and that his interest in the plot should be protected. The respondents submitted a circular indicating that the plot would be shown on an online portal and that the petitioner could submit a proper industrial proposal and, if his technical bid were accepted, be allowed to participate further. Considering the unique circumstances, the Court ordered that the petitioner may apply online when the plot becomes available and, if his technical bid is accepted, the M.I.D.C. must not invite further bids and must allot the plot to him at the existing rates. The writ petition was thereafter disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the M.I.D.C. policy prohibiting allotment of industrial plots for commercial purposes bars the petitioner’s claim to the plot.
Whether the petitioner’s prior family purchase of the plot confers a protected interest despite the policy restrictions.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be allotted the plot at existing rates upon acceptance of his technical bid.

Subjects

industrial plot allotment
M.I.D.C. policy
online bidding
industrial vs commercial use
auction purchase
writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:19431-DB


                                                1               31-wp 13172-2017.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 13172 OF 2017

                 Vaibhav Prabhakr Kulkarni
                 @ Vaibhav Prabhu Rajput                                   .. Petitioner

                        Versus

                 The State Of Maharashtra And Others                       .. Respondents

                 Mr. Ravindra V. Gore, Advocate for Petitioner.
                 Ms. Kalpalata Patil-Bharaswadkar, Addl.G.P. for Respondent No. 1.
                 Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
                 Mr. Ajinkya A. Joshi, Advocate h/f Mr. S. V. Natu, Advocate for
                 Respondent No. 3.

                                        CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                                                SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.
                                         DATE       :   28th APRIL, 2026.

                 PER COURT :-

                 1.     Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned

                 advocate Mr. Dande for M.I.D.C.


                 2.     This Court has already passed an elaborate order on

                 30.03.2026 and the petitioner was granted some time to take

                 instructions and to prepare detailed project report.


                 3.     Now, learned advocate Mr. Dande for respondent No. 2 has

                 placed on record a circular dated 17.10.2025. He submits that, as
                               2             31-wp 13172-2017.odt


per the MILAAP policy every plot which is available for allotment

is shown on online portal. Thereafter the persons interested are

required to submit online proposal. In the present case, the plot is

reserved for industrial purpose whereas, in proposal of the

petitioner he has given the details of restaurant business. In such

case, the industrial plot cannot be allotted for commercial

purpose. He further submits that, if the petitioner files proper

proposal, the same will be considered and once he qualified the

technical bid he will be allowed to participate in further bid.


4.    The learned advocate Mr. Gore for the petitioner though

initially submits that the position and the policy of the M.I.D.C. to

be considered on the date of filing his petition, this Court has

made some reservation to accept this proposition. The M.I.D.C. is

established with a view to see that industrial growth is achieved in

the State, however, at the same time, it is not expected to run the

corporation in losses and some private making element is involved

in their activities.



5.    Considering the peculiar facts of this case and keeping in

view that the petitioner’s father purchased the plot in auction held

by respondent No. 3 bank, this Court finds that, some interest of
                                 3               31-wp 13172-2017.odt


the petitioner needs to be protected. It is with this view, following

order is passed.

                                 ORDER

(a)      The petitioner is at liberty to apply online, once the plot is

shown to be available. If his technical bid is accepted, we direct

the M.I.D.C. not to go for further bid, but to allot the plot to the

petitioner at the then existing rates.


(b)      The writ petition stands disposed of.



( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)                   ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )




P.S.B.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…