M/s Zenith Metaplast had filed a Writ Petition against MIDC, Mahindra & Mahindra Limited and others, which has been dismissed by the Bombay High Court. According to the petition, Zenith Metaplast pursued the allotment a plot in Nashik, which measured three acres, to itself while at the same time the company requested cancellation of bordering plots which have been allotted to automobile major Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. along with industrialist, Abhay Kulkarni.
The Writ Petition, which challenged the allotment by MIDC of a 17-acre and a 6-acre plot in line with Zenith Metaplast’s factory to Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and Mr. Abhay Kulkarni, respectively. Moreover, the appeal also stood against a rejection of its application requesting the allotment of approximately 3 acres of land to the manufacturing company. Apart from the petition, which was filed before the Bombay High Court on 12th October 2006, the petitioner had also demanded stay orders for the enactment and operation of the respective allotment.
The Bombay High Court had earlier acknowledged the Writ Petition, dated 5th February 2008. Yet it was not in favour of granting any provisional relief resulting in the petition standing expedited. Zenith Metaplast had thence filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court requesting a minimum of two acres land bordering its plot. After wilfully hearing the case, The Supreme Court instructed the parties to sustain status quo till the matter was finally settled by Bombay High Court.
The reason for the Writ being dismissed was that the MIDC’s circular dated 24th January 1994, which Zenith depended on, is not applicable to the manufacturing company. Furthermore, the circular does not violate MIDC Land Disposal Regulations 1975. The circular abides by the allotment of industrial plots which were brought to effect by inviting tenders. However, the procedure does not apply to the 17 and 6-acre plots which were allotted to Mahindra & Mahindra and Mr. Kulkarni. Thus, in all respects, the allotment was entirely as per the guidelines of the law.
The Bombay High Court further stated that the Petitioner has not realised the full potential of the FSI on the plots already available to it and, apart from it, the company also had the possession of eight other plots which were not fully exploited till date.
