The Supreme Court, while disposing of a challenge to the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of a PIL over the alleged conversion of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) open-space plot for industrial use, granted the petitioner liberty to move the High Court for an opportunity to be heard. The Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan noted that the High Court had decided the matter on August 1, 2025, when no one appeared for the petitioner at the final hearing.
The case arose from the PIL filed to challenge an MIDC circular dated April 2, 2007 and the de-reservation of Plot No. 121 (part) in Taloja MIDC, which the petitioner claimed was originally earmarked as open space and, therefore, cannot be altered for industrial purposes. The Bombay High Court, however, upheld MIDC’s authority to alter land use within industrial layouts, referring to Owens-Corning India Ltd. v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, WP No.3031 of 1999, and Ganpat Dhondu Bhuvad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., WP No.2735 of 1994, and dismissed the PIL as meritless. It held that MIDC, as a special planning authority, is empowered to change plot usage in compelling circumstances, and that the 2007 circular validly permits such modifications.
Hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court had decided the matter without hearing the petitioner, as the impugned order expressly recorded that “none appears for the Petitioner” at the time of final hearing. Granting limited relief, the Court condoned the delay in refiling and reserved liberty to the petitioner, in light of principles of natural justice, to move an application before the High Court seeking an opportunity to be heard. The Court directed the High Court to consider any such request of the petitioner in accordance with the law and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case.
Appearances
Petitioner: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajat Mathur, Adv. Mr. Noor Shergill, Adv. Ms. Anuja Pethia, AOR Mr. Rishabh Nigam, Adv. Ms. Mihir Joshi, Adv. Mr. Swapnil Gupta, Adv. Mr. Danish Faraz Khan, Adv.
Respondents: —
