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 2026:BHC-AUG:19431-DB 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.