JUDGMENT A. H. JOSHI, J. :- Parties were put to notice by order dated 6-1-2010 it the writ petition would be taken up for final disposal. Thereafter, the petition was adjourned from time to time. 2. Hence, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. Advocate Mr. M. M. Agnihotri waives service for both respondents. 4. Taken up for final hearing by consent. 5. Petitioner's case is based on following admitted facts :-- (a) The petitioner has agreed to sell/assign its lease hold rights to M/s Purohit and Company by oral agreement dated 1-6-2006. (b) Furtherance to the agreement, the petitioner allowed M/s Purohit and Company to construct the Factory Shed for its proposed business of spinning mill. (c) M/s Purohit and Company has completed the construction and has commissioned its Spinning Mill on 15-8-2007. (d) Petitioner and purchaser have submitted application for transfer of plot in the name of M/s Purohit and Company, on 23-10-2007. (e) On 24-2-2009 and 18-3-2009 communications are sent by which following demands were raised. (i) Handing over charges : Rs. 26,46,000=00 (ii) Land Rent : Rs. 3=00 (iii) Subletting charges : Rs. 11,44,900=00 (iv) Penalty Charges for Subletting. : Rs. 57,24,500=00 (f) Out of four demands, the petitioner and purchasers have acceded to payment of transfer charges Rs. 26,46,000/- and land rent. (g) Petitioner disputes sub-letting charges and penalty for sub-letting stated in item No. (iii) and (iv). (h) During pendency of petition, the representations were submitted for reconsideration of the matter, but the respondents have declined the request. Hence, this petition is pursued after amendment. 6. In the body of petition in paragraph 11-A, the transaction between the petitioner and purchaser is described by showing that the payment of consideration was received by the petitioner from the purchaser in following manner: “Sr. Date Vou. Particulars Amount No. No. 1. 7-8-2006 19 To Canara Bank Cheque No. Rs. 50,00,000/- 984980. 2. 7-10-2006 1 To Canara Bank Cheque No. Rs. 21,00,000/- 363420 3. 4-5-2007 341 To Canara Bank DD No. Rs. 29,90,000/- 483998, 483999 and 4834000 4. 28-6-2007 943 To Canara Bank. Rs. 3,89,000/- As per Bank statement. Total Rs. 1,04,79,000=00” 7. It is further stated that the said transactions are duly accounted and it is an out and out assignment/sale and there is no semblance of sub-leasing. 8. 21,00,000/- 363420 3. 4-5-2007 341 To Canara Bank DD No. Rs. 29,90,000/- 483998, 483999 and 4834000 4. 28-6-2007 943 To Canara Bank. Rs. 3,89,000/- As per Bank statement. Total Rs. 1,04,79,000=00” 7. It is further stated that the said transactions are duly accounted and it is an out and out assignment/sale and there is no semblance of sub-leasing. 8. Based on these submissions, the petitioner has challenged the demand towards sub-letting charges and penalty towards alleged sub-letting raised in the impugned communications. 9. Petitioner's contention in summary is that levy of subleasing charges and penalty is not supported by authority of law, and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. In support of the contentions, learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following Judgments. (1) 1971(3) SCC 883 , General Manager, North East Frontier Railway and others vs. Dinabandhu Chakraborty, (2) (1987) 2 SCC 160 , State of Karnataka vs. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills, (3) (2009) 2 SCC 337 , BSNL vs. Motorola, (4) (1990) 4 SCC 113 , Dabur India Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (5) (2008) 7 SCC 722 , Nirmal Kanta vs. Ashok Kumar and another, (6) AIR 1985 Bombay 429, Virji Nathuram and others vs. Krishnakumar, (7) (2007) 1 SCC 732 , Arun Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others. 11. The petition is opposed on the ground that :-- (a) With an object of curbing the tendency of unauthorised sub-letting, the MIDC has taken a policy decision to levy sub-letting charges and penalty. (b) This decision is circulated by MIDC's circular dated 15-3-2007. (c) The commissioning of the factory of the purchaser which is admittedly done on 15-8-2007, and due to this fact entry of M/s Purohit and company is liable to be treated as sub-lease. (d) The demand is just and reasonable. 12. In the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents, the fact of the matter that the amount of consideration received by the petitioner being towards sale/assignment of lease is not disputed. All that is asserted by the respondents is that, the delivery of advance possession before the sale attracts sub-letting charges and penalty. 13. This Court has perused the record, and the precedents cited at bar. 14. All that is asserted by the respondents is that, the delivery of advance possession before the sale attracts sub-letting charges and penalty. 13. This Court has perused the record, and the precedents cited at bar. 14. This Court has to address the limited issues involved in this petition which are framed as below :-- (a) Was M/s Purohit and Company introduced by the petitioner as a prospective purchaser or as sub-lessee? (b) Does delivery of possession for raising factory building to M/s Purohit and Company attract sub-letting charges and penalty irrespective of nature of transaction? 15. Neither the petitioner nor Purohit and Company have ever pleaded that it was a lessee. It is also seen that it is not the case of the respondents that any agreement or covenants disclose any payment done or agreed even as an alternate stipulation, any liability to pay rent. 16. Admittedly, the petitioner and the purchaser had moved the respondents for transfer of lease hold rights, and in response, the respondents have come with four distinct demands. Two amongst those demands are towards transfer charges and rent for land which demands are not in-disputed. Remaining two demands pertain to sub-letting charges and penalty for alleged sub-letting. 17. It is seen, and is conclusive from pleadings and record produced by the petitioner that based on oral agreement, M/s Purohit and Company has paid to the petitioner various amounts towards consideration of assignment by cheques and Demand Drafts. Even the respondents do not plead that any amount is shown to have been paid as rent. 18. Going by preponderance of probabilities no entrepreneur would part with such large sum of around Rs.1 crore if such a convenient plot could be available on rent or sub-lease, that too for permanent construction and use for a spinning mill. 19. The respondent is a statutory Corporation constituted under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. Powers, duties and functions of this corporation are derived from said Act and Rules made thereunder. 20. We have perused the circular relied upon by the respondents as authority for levying of said penalty i.e. circular dated 15-3-2007. It is seen that this circular is issued by the Chief Executive Officer of respondents. It does not disclose or demonstrate existence of any authority of law. Any authority of law for impugned act is demonstrated during the course of the submissions. It is seen that this circular is issued by the Chief Executive Officer of respondents. It does not disclose or demonstrate existence of any authority of law. Any authority of law for impugned act is demonstrated during the course of the submissions. It is seen that the said circular is in the form of internal communication by the Chief Executive Officer, and does not have force of law or rules having force of law. By any permutation and combination, this circular cannot be treated as issued under the authority of law. 21. It is not shown before us that any provision of the Act or the Rule made thereunder empowers the respondents to levy charges towards sub-letting of and/or penalty for such unauthorized sub-letting, or treating any transfer of possession to be "demand" to be sub-letting. The respondents have not shown any rule of law which would authorize the respondent corporation to raise a presumption that any other party in possession than the original or subsequent 'allottee', would be "deemed to be sub lessee" and that the respondents would be entitled to levy sub-letting charges, and penalty for any unauthorised sub-letting. 22. It is well settled that any public body or statutory authority cannot charge any fee or penalty without authority of law. 23. The result that ensues is that neither on facts or even by fiction of law the transaction between the petitioner and the purchaser can be regarded as sublease. The transaction is a case of an out and out sale/assignment of lease hold rights. This conclusion is the only fall out from the undisputed and indisputable facts. 24. In the result, the Points framed by this Court in para foregoing 14 are answered as follows :-- (a) As to Point (a) : M/s Purohit and Company was not introduced as a sub-lessee. (b) As to Point (b) :- The respondents do not have authority of law to levy any sub-letting charges on the petitioner in view of the facts of the case. The transfer of possession in favour of Purohit and Company does not attract sub-letting charges and penalty towards alleged sub-letting. 25. Considering the limited issue involved in the matter, it is not necessary to discuss the citations relied upon by the petitioner. 26. In the result, the petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (1) and (1-A). 25. Considering the limited issue involved in the matter, it is not necessary to discuss the citations relied upon by the petitioner. 26. In the result, the petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (1) and (1-A). In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear own costs. Order accordingly.