Anil L. Pansare, J.

1. Petitioners herein are interested in acquiring plot No.G-13/2 admeasuring 8525 Sq. Mtrs. situated at Hingna Industrial Area, Nagpur. Accordingly, the petitions were heard together and are being decided by common judgment. Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1494/2022 will be referred to as “M/s. Patel and Company”. Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6575/2023 will be referred to as “M/s. Jalaraj Pharma” and petitioner/ applicant in Civil Application No.122/2025 in Contempt Petition No.212/2025 and Civil Application No.3143/2025 in Writ Petition No.705/2022, will be referred to as “M/s. MICS”.

2. The Writ Petition No.1494/2022 was as such disposed of vide judgment dated 25.01.2023. The matter was remanded back to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (“MIDC”) for consideration afresh, in accordance with law and in the light of what has been stated in the judgment. The MIDC was directed to review its decision dated 17.08.2022 allotting plot No. G-13/2 to M/s. Jalaraj Pharma.

3. As such the then Division Bench (Coram: Sunil B. Shukre and Anil L. Pansare, JJ.), thought it appropriate to note in paragraph 26 that the matter will have to be remanded back for consideration afresh, strictly in accordance with circular dated 09.06.2021, however, in subsequent paragraphs, the MIDC was directed to consider the issue afresh in accordance with law (not in accordance with circular dated 09.06.2021) and in the light of what has been stated in the judgment.

4. As regards facts, it was not in dispute that M/s. Patel and Company could not have insisted for allotment of a particular plot. However, the Division Bench took note of the fact that its insistence for allotment of said plot was natural because it is running an oxygen manufacturing plant in the close proximity of the plot in issue.

5. The MIDC, in terms of judgment dated 25.01.2023 considered the matter afresh and took a decision dated 01.09.2023 to cancel the allotment order dated 17.08.2022 in favour of M/s. Jalraj Pharma and to allot the plot through auction. The MIDC, while cancelling allotment also took note of the fact that there was an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.705/2022 to maintain status quo. This decision has been now challenged by M/s. Jalraj Pharma in Writ Petition No.6575/2023.

6. M/s. Jalraj Pharma filed review application on 04.11.2024, being Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.909/2024, to review judgment dated 25.01.2023, stating therein that M/s. Patel and Company had not disclosed that the plant, which it was running, was closed. Accordingly, the review application was allowed vide order dated 12.02.2025 and the Writ Petition No.1494/2022 was restored to file. Thereafter, the said petition with other petitions was listed for hearing.

7. We have heard Mr. F. T.Mirza, learned Senior Counsel for M/s. Patel and Company, Mr. M. G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for M/s. Jalraj Pharma, Mr. H. R. Gadhia, learned counsel for M/s. MICS, Mr. N.R. Patil, learned A.G.P. for State, Mr. J. B. Kasat, learned counsel for MIDC.

8. Mr. Mirza, learned Senior Counsel submits that M/s. Patel and Company had assailed order dated 12.02.2025, allowing review application, before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.12811/2025. The same was disposed of on 25.04.2025 granting liberty to M/s. Patel and Company to advance arguments relating to maintainability of the review petition filed by M/s. Jalraj Pharma. The Supreme Court further clarified that the allotment of the plot in issue made in favour of M/s. Jalraj Pharma shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions filed by M/s. Patel and Company and M/s. Jalraj Pharma. All the contentions relating to the allotment of the plots were kept open.

9. Argument is that the plant was closed after petition was reserved for judgment. Therefore, the development is inconsequential. The review application was thus not maintainable.

10. We do not find merit in the submissions. The bench (Coram: Avinash G. Gharote and Anil L. Pansare, JJ.) before whom the review application was listed, had taken note of the submission made by M/s. Patel and Company in the review application and noted that the development may be inconsequential but non disclosure of the fact is itself a sufficient ground to allow the application. The bench further noted that the insistence of M/s. Patel and Company for allotment of plot in issue was deemed reasonable by the Court because M/s. Patel & Company was operating oxygen plant in the close proximity to the said plot. The MIDC had otherwise offered a plot at Butibori Industrial Area. Thus, closure of the oxygen plant had a direct nexus with the insistence of M/s. Patel and Company to allot plot in the close proximity. The non disclosure of the said fact is, therefore, a sufficient reason to allow the review application. The argument, therefore, that the review application was not maintainable is devoid of merit and is rejected accordingly.

11. Another limb of argument is that M/s. Jalraj Pharma could not have filed the review application because despite having knowledge of pendency of writ petition, it did not intervene in the matter. Mr. Mirza submits that M/s. Jalraj Pharma is fence sitter and, therefore, the review application at its instance was not maintainable.

12. True it is that M/s. Jalraj Pharma had knowledge of pendency of the instant petition. That by itself will neither mandate it to intervene in the petition nor will it bar filing review application under Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In such a case, the only requirement is to obtain leave of the Court which M/s. Jalraj Pharma has done. There is, thus, no merit in this contention as well.

13. On merit, Mr. Mirza submits that the M/s. Patel and Company would maintain its stand as taken in the earlier round. According to him, M/s. Patel and Company is entitled for allotment of the plot under question for installation of oxygen manufacturing plant under the scheme, “Mission Oxygen Swawlamban” in terms of Government Resolution (“GR”) dated 21.05.2021 read with circular dated 23.06.2021.

14. Clause 12 (2) of the said GR pertains to allotment of land situated in the MIDC. Clause 12 (4) thereof provides that the scheme will be applicable/in force until 31.12.2021.

15. The scheme was floated in terms of contingency then prevailing during Covid-19 pandemic. There was dire need of oxygen and, therefore, the installation of oxygen manufacturing plants was the priority. The situation today is altogether different. The contingency no more exists.

16. The argument, however, is that since the application was filed during subsistence of the scheme, the Court should consider the claim strictly in terms of the policy then existing. In support, Mr. Mirza relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar and Ors .Vs. Jot Ram and Ors.; [AIR 1976 SC 49], wherein, while dealing with the issue of right to relief of the parties, the Court held that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suit is filed or legal proceedings are instituted. The Court held that right of a party is determined by the fact as they exist on the date the action is instituted. Later development cannot deviate his right. The Court further held that the procedural delay cannot deprive the litigant of legal justice or rights crystallized in the initial cause of action. The Supreme Court then also clarified that the Courts can take note of the subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly. But this can be done only in exceptional circumstance. The Supreme Court held that the rights vested by statute cannot be divested by this equitable doctrine.

17. These findings were rendered in the light of the peculiar facts of the case. The issue before the Supreme Court was pertaining to right of a tenant in terms of Section 18(1) and (4) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which provides purchasing proprietary right by tenant from big land owners. The Supreme Court held that such a right is vested in the tenant by virtue of Section 18(4) and is not divested by subsequent death of land owner and devolution of his right on his heir. Thus, subsequent death of land owner was held inconsequential as regards rights of tenants existing on the date when the suit was instituted. It is, in this context, the Supreme Court held that the rights vested by statue cannot be divested by equitable doctrine, which enables the Courts to take note of the subsequent events and to mould the relief accordingly.

18. In the present case, it is not in dispute that while seeking allotment of plot under the scheme, M/s. Patel and Company could not have insisted for allotment of a particular plot. The MIDC had offered a plot at Butibori Industrial Area. M/s. Patel and Company’s insistence for allotment of plot in issue was found reasonable on account of it running similar such plant in the close proximity. The said plant, having been closed, M/s. Patel and Company cannot now insist for allotment of the said plot. In any case, Mr. Mirza failed to point out from the provisions of the Act or the scheme that M/s. Patel and Company had a statutory right to get the plot in issue allotted.

19. That apart, Mr. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.Jalraj Pharma has invited our attention to judgment of the Supreme Court in Chief Marketing (Marketing Division) Coal India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mewat Chemicals & Tiny SSI Coal Pulverising Unit and Ors.; [(2004) 4 SCC 146], to contend that the position prevailing at the time of allotment of plot is relevant not necessarily the date on which application was made.

20. We have gone through the judgment. The primary issue was whether Coal Controller has an independent authority to grant coal quota under the Colliery Control Order or whether such powers were subordinate to and reviewable by the Central Government. This issue was considered in the light of provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Colliery Control Order framed thereunder, where certain notifications were issued in the year 1992 specifying the Coal Controller as competent authority to allot coal quota. The Supreme Court held that the Coal Controller exercises delegated powers and is not an authority equal to the Central Government. The Court further held that the Central Government can issue subsequent instructions overriding Coal Controller’s order and such instructions are not a review of the Coal Controller’s order but is an exercise of superior policy making authority. The Supreme Court also clarified that the applicants therein were not entitled to a vested right based on the date of application but on the position prevailing at the time the allotment is actually made taking into account all valid instructions in force at that time.

21. Thus, considering peculiar facts, the aforesaid order was passed and accordingly, the Court clarified that the position prevailing at the time of allotment is relevant and not the date of application for allotment. It will thus depend on facts and circumstances of each case coupled with the provisions of the policy prevailing at the relevant time as to whether date of application seeking particular relief or the position prevailing at the time of considering application will be relevant. In the present case, we did not find from the provisions of the scheme or otherwise that the petitioner can insist for allotment of a particular plot. In fact, it is not disputed that the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of a particular plot. Therefore, the date of making application will have no bearing in the matter.

22. There is another reason why such direction cannot be issued to MIDC. As noted earlier, there are other stakeholders to plot in issue namely, M/s. Jalraj Pharma and M/s. MICS. In fact, the MIDC had allotted the said plot to M/s. Jalraj Pharma, which according to us, was a mischief played by the MIDC and M/s. Jalraj Pharma. Nonetheless, the MIDC has taken corrective steps. It has cancelled the allotment and decided to auction the plot. This decision is challenged by M/s. Jalraj Pharma saying that the decision is sans reason and is taken in contravention to the judgment dated 25.01.2023 passed by this Court.

23. We may note here that the plot was allotted to M/s. Jalraj Pharma despite the parties to Writ Petition No.705/2022, having been directed to maintain status quo as on 10.02.2022 as regards plot in issue. The said petition was filed by the M/s. MICS. M/s. Jalraj Pharma was party respondent No. 6 and MIDC was party respondent No. 5. Thus, both, MIDC and M/s. Jalraj Pharma were aware of the order of status quo. Despite such order, the plot in issue was allotted to M/s. Jalraj Pharma subject, however, to orders of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.705/2022 and 1494/2022. Thus, the allotment was subject to order of this Court. The MIDC, subsequent to judgment passed in Writ Petition no.1494/2022 and taking note of the fact that it ought to have maintained status quo, took a decision to cancel allotment. Thus, reasons have been assigned while taking decision. There is thus no substance in the plea that the order is passed without assigning any reason.

24. Mr. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel then submits that the plot was allotted prior to order of status quo and even prior to filing petition by M/s. Patel and Company.

25. We have gone through the record to find that in January, 2022, the land admeasuring 6000 Sq. Mtr. was allotted to M/s. Jalraj Pharma. In turn, M/s. Jalraj Pharma deposited the amount of Rs.38,67,000/- as earnest money. On 04.03.2022, M/s. Jalraj Pharma made communication with MIDC stating therein that the land allotted to it is not adequate and accordingly made a request to allocate the plot in issue admeasuring about 9000 Sq. Mtrs.

26. Thus, knowing fully well that there is an order of status quo dated 10.02.2022, M/s. Jalraj Pharma on 04.03.2022 made a request to the MIDC to allot plot in issue. This speaks volumes about its conduct. On the top of it, MIDC considered the said request and on 17.08.2022, allotted the plot, subject however to the decision in Writ Petition No.705/2022 and Writ Petition No.1494/2022. Such conduct at the hands of M/s. Jalraj Pharma and MIDC is not only contemptuous but is a sufficient reason to set aside the allotment. Nonetheless, MIDC has subsequently corrected its decision of allotment, which according to us, is a legitimate step taken so as to allot the plot in accordance with disposal rules.

27. As such, M/s. Jalraj Pharma, during the course of hearing took a plea that the plot in issue was allotted prior to passing order of status quo, it has, however, modified this stand by filing written notes of argument. The plea now put forth is that the land was allotted prior to filing Writ Petition No.1494/2022, which was filed on 14.03.2022. Thus, the plea of allotment of plot in issue prior to passing order of status quo has been modified to allotment of land (without plot number), admeasuring 6000 Sq. Mtrs. Further plea is taken that M/s. Patel and Company did not challenge allotment of 6000 Sq. Mts. of land and the decision to allot additional land of 3000 Sq. Mtr. Therefore, it cannot question the allotment of the land to M/s. Jalraj Pharma.

28. Mr. Bhangde also highlighted that since the order of status quo was not passed in Writ Petition No.1494/2022, there would not arise any question to rely upon the said order in the present proceedings.

29. This argument requires outright rejection. M/s. Jalraj Pharma was well aware of pendency of Writ Petition No.1494/2022 by which M/s. Patel and Company made a specific prayer for allotment of plot in issue. It was also aware that on 10.02.2022, in Writ Petition No.705/2022, this Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo. Despite such status, M/s. Jalraj Pharma filed application dated 04.03.2022 and while making a request to the MIDC to allot additional land of 3000 Sq. Mtr. made a categorical prayer to allot the plot in issue. Thus, though the land admeasuring 6000 Sq.Mtr. was allotted to M/s. Jalraj Pharma prior to passing order of status quo, subsequent thereto i.e. in March, 2022, it made a request to allot the plot in issue. This request was evidently in breach of order of status quo. The MIDC, however, acceded to such request. Thus M/s. Jalraj Pharma continued to play mischief, which action is deprecable and is accordingly deprecated.

30. Secondly, this fact of allotment of land was brought to the notice of this Court in Writ Petition No.1494/2022 by MIDC, by filing pursis dated 17.11.2022. Along with pursis, was filed a submission note of the MIDC dated 12.08.2022 relating to allotment of plot in issue. The note referred to Writ Petition No.705/2022 indicating that the petitioner therein M/s. MICS had also applied for the plot in issue, his application was rejected and therefore, he preferred the said writ petition. The note also refers to the order directing the parties to maintain the status quo as regards the plot in issue and despite that the plot was allotted to M/s. Jalraj Pharma. In that view of the matter, the conduct of MIDC required detailed scrutiny in Writ Petition No.1494/2022. In any case, both the petitions were pending before the then Division Bench and vide order dated 11.08.2022 in Writ Petition No.705/2022, it was to be heard along with Writ Petition no.1494/2022. Thus, the Court had an occasion to notice the conduct of the parties pending petitions.

31. It also transpired that during the course of hearing on 07.07.2022, in the earlier round of litigation, Mr. J. B. Kasat, learned counsel for the MIDC, on instructions made a statement that the plot in issue has been resumed by the MIDC on 05.07.2022. If this is true, we are surprised as to how M/s. Jalraj Pharma on 04.03.2022 made an application for allotment of the said plot. Thus, it is writ large that M/s. Jalraj Pharma and officials of the MIDC acted hand in glove. In the circumstances, the plea as put forth of not challenging the allotment of plot by M/s. Patel and Company is a ground too technical to take cognizance of. It is well settled that the discretionary and equitable relief can be granted only to the party approaching with clean hands.

32. M/s. Jalraj Pharma then put up a plea that M/s. Patel and Company and M/s. MICS are known traders of the industrial plots. They regularly secure allotment of plots in MIDC areas and sell them on a higher price.

33. Thus, M/s. Jalraj Pharma has now resorted to blame game so as to get relief. We will put to rest this plea by saying that blameworthy acts of others, if any, will not neutralize one’s own polluted doings/acts and make good its misdeeds.

34. Mr.Bhangde has then placed reliance upon circular dated 03.06.2014 to contend that the allotment of plot to M/s. Jalraj Pharma is in tune with the said policy of the MIDC and, therefore, cannot be faulted with.

35. We have gone through the circular. It provides privilege of allotment of plots without quotations to certain categories viz. Government Approved Large Scale Projects, industries inviting foreign investments, entrepreneurs supplying machinery and equipment to defence, the companies of the nature of Fortune Global 500, Economic Times 500, etc. M/s. Jalraj Pharma, however, doesn’t fit in this privileged category for direct allotment of plots. It has not placed before us nor has MIDC allotted the said plot to M/s. Jalraj Pharma based on the privileged category. Thus, it is not entitled for allotment of plot in terms of circular dated 03.06.2014, or other such circular.

36. Put all together what transpires is that three entities were interested in the plot in issue. None of them could have, as of right, insisted for allotment of the said plot. The policy relied upon by M/s. Patel and Company was in existence for limited period i.e. up to 31.12.2021. The contingency for which the policy was floated is no more existing. The policy relied upon by M/s. Jalraj Pharma for direct allotment of plot is not applicable to it. In any case, its conduct is such that it is not entitled for equitable and discretionary relief. In the circumstances, the decision now taken by the MIDC to allot the plot by way of auction is not only in tune with disposal rules but is a legitimate step taken by it to encourage transparency, which according to us, is in the interest of all concerned.

37. The argument that the decision dated 01.09.2023 taken by MIDC is taken pursuant to judgment dated 25.01.2023, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1494/2022 and since the judgment is recalled, decision should be set aside, is not tenable for the reasons we have quoted in the earlier paragraphs. Further, the said decision is also taken on the basis of what transpired in Writ Petition No.705/2022.

38. In addition, Mr. Kasat submits that a fresh policy decision is taken by the MIDC, which is dated 17.10.2025, whereby a decision is taken to allot all the plots of MIDC only by auction.

39. It is a welcome decision and will meet requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Argument that the said policy cannot be applied for the petitions filed prior thereto is without any substance considering the conduct of the parties and subsequent development. We reiterate that it will be in the interest of parties and all stakeholders to adopt process of auction while allotting plots. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the petitions filed by M/s. Patel and Company and M/s. Jalraj Pharma. Both the petitions are dismissed.

40. Civil Application No. 3143/2025 is filed by M/s. MICS seeking to recall the order dated 11.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 705/2022. This order came to be passed on the basis of statement made by Mr. H. R. Gadhia, learned counsel for the M/s. MICS that its grievance stood redressed in the light of the decision taken by the MIDC to allot the plot in issue by way of public auction. The said statement was accepted and accordingly, writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.

41. We do not find any reason to recall the order since we have upheld the decision taken by the MIDC to allot all the plots by public auction. The application is accordingly rejected.

42. Insofar as Civil Application No.122/2025 in Writ Petition No.705/2022 is concerned, Contempt Petition No. 212/2022 was already dropped owing to disposal of the Writ Petition No.705/2022. The status continues. Accordingly, Civil Application No.122/2025 is rejected.

43. Mr. Bhangde, learned counsel for M/s. Jalraj Pharma seeks protection for eight weeks.

44. There arises no question of granting any protection to M/s. Jalraj Pharma inasmuch as the decision dated 01.09.2023 taken by the MIDC to cancel allotment of plot and to dispose it of through auction has been upheld. That being so and for the reasons stated in the body of order and considering the conduct of M/s. Jalraj Pharma, the request is rejected.