ORDER : G. S. Kulkarni, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for a relief that the petitioner be granted allotment of a plot of land by respondent No.1-MIDC in lieu of the plot of land allotted to the petitioner qua allotment letter dated 12 February 2015. It is also prayed that in the alternative the respondents be directed to refund the earnest money alongwith interest. There is also a prayer that the respondents be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner as the petitioner did not start the project and as huge loss was suffered by the petitioner on account of the plot of land being not allotted to the petitioner. 2. In our opinion, the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner are thoroughly misconceived which can be seen from the following facts: On 28 January 2014 the petitioner made an application for allotment of2000 sq. meters of land for the project to the MIDC. The petitioner’s application was scrutinized and on such preliminary scrutiny, a communication dated 5 November 2014 was issued to the petitioner informing the petitioner that on scrutiny of the petitioner’s application, the land allotment committee of the Corporation has decided to offer to the petitioner land admeasuring 1500 sq. meters and an offer was made to the petitioner at the rate of premium for land at Rs.2660/-, and for which the petitioner was called upon to deposit Rs.9,97,500/- towards the earnest money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said communication. The following condition as incorporated in the letter, is required to be noted which reads thus:- “7. In case, you fail to accept the final allotment after it is communicated to you or fail to pay the balance of premium amount or to execute the Agreement to Lease, the Corporation will be entitled to forfeit the entire amount of Earnest Money paid by you.” 3. The petitioner deposited the earnest money of Rs.9,97,500/- on 21 November 2014 pursuant thereto an allotment letter dated 12 February 2015 came to be issued to the petitioner informing the petitioner that plot No.H-145/2 in Additional Nashik Ambad Industrial Area was allotted to the petitioner subject to the petitioner paying an amount of Rs. The petitioner deposited the earnest money of Rs.9,97,500/- on 21 November 2014 pursuant thereto an allotment letter dated 12 February 2015 came to be issued to the petitioner informing the petitioner that plot No.H-145/2 in Additional Nashik Ambad Industrial Area was allotted to the petitioner subject to the petitioner paying an amount of Rs. 29,92,500/- being the balance amount of the premium, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the said allotment order by drawing a demand draft in favour of MIDC, Nashik. The allotment letter incorporated the specific conditions in paragraphs 2 and 3 in regard to cancellation of earnest money deposit which read thus: “(2) In case the allottee fails to pay the balance amount of premium within the period mentioned above, the allotment shall be liable to cancelled without further notice. (3) In the event of the allotment being cancelled as foresaid the the corporation will be entitled to forfeit the whole of the earnest money received with the application.” 4. It appears from the record that for a substantial period of almost one year, the petitioner did not make any payment of the balance lease premium of Rs.29,92,500/- which was in fact required to be paid within 30 days from the allotment letter dated 12 February 2015. What the petitioner did was that the petitioner addressed a letter dated 31 March 2016 to the Regional Officer of the MIDC-respondent No.2 with a subject “Regarding Refund of initial amount”. In such letter while demanding the said amount, it was stated by the petitioner that the plot allotted to the petitioner by the MIDC (Plot No.H-145/2) was not suitable for the petitioner’s business for the reason that it was adjacent to the slum area and therefore, another plot ought to have been allotted to the petitioner. Thus, such demand for refund of the earnest money was made almost after one year. 5. The record would further indicate that a letter dated 29 February 2016 was addressed by the Regional Officer (IT), MIDC, Mumbai, calling upon the petitioner for discussion on 2 March 2016 with a specific condition that if the petitioner fails to attend the meeting, it will be presumed that the petitioner is not interested in allotment of plot of land. The record would further indicate that a letter dated 29 February 2016 was addressed by the Regional Officer (IT), MIDC, Mumbai, calling upon the petitioner for discussion on 2 March 2016 with a specific condition that if the petitioner fails to attend the meeting, it will be presumed that the petitioner is not interested in allotment of plot of land. On 13 April 2016, the petitioner, in terms was informed by the Regional Officer, MIDC that it would not be possible for the MIDC to change the allotment to the location as desired by the petitioner. The petitioner was offered the plots of land in the ‘H Block’, a list of which was furnished with the letter. The petitioner was called upon to respond to the same within 15 days. It appears that even on this the petitioner did not revert to the said authority. The petitioner, however, addressed a letter dated 7 September 2016 recording its inability to accept the plot as allotted and insisted that the petitioner be either granted refund of the earnest money or be given a plot which was described in the said letter. Such request of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent vide letter dated 21 December 2016 addressed by the Regional Officer, MIDC, inter alia informing that as the petitioner has not paid the balance amount as per the terms and conditions of allotment letter dated 12 February 2015, however, the earnest money paid by the petitioner would be forfeited. The english translation of the said communication which is original in Marathi, reads thus: (Official Translation of a photocopy of a LETTER, typewritten in Marathi.) Ex “ H ” Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (Government of Maharashtra Undertaking) _____________________________________________________________ O.No./M.I.D.C./ R.O./Ambad/Earnest Money/E22443/2016 Telephone Number 2364011 Office of the Regional Officer, M.I.D.C. Corporation, Udyog Bhavan, Satpur, Nashik – 422 007. Date : 21.12.2016. To, Shri. Manoj Pangle, Proprietor, M/s. Chintamani Edutech, 10, Shrihari Tower, Kulkarni Colony, Near Rachana School, Nashik – 422005. Subject : - Plot No. H – 145/2 in the extended Nashik (Ambad) Industrial Area Regarding Earnest Money. Reference :- Your Letters dated 31.03.2016, 16.07.2016 and 20.09.2016. Sir, You were allotted a Plot of land, admeasuring 1500.00 sq. mtr. To, Shri. Manoj Pangle, Proprietor, M/s. Chintamani Edutech, 10, Shrihari Tower, Kulkarni Colony, Near Rachana School, Nashik – 422005. Subject : - Plot No. H – 145/2 in the extended Nashik (Ambad) Industrial Area Regarding Earnest Money. Reference :- Your Letters dated 31.03.2016, 16.07.2016 and 20.09.2016. Sir, You were allotted a Plot of land, admeasuring 1500.00 sq. mtr. in the extended Nashik (Ambad) Industrial Area for IT purpose and for the said purpose, pursuant to the Offer Letter No. 6653, dated 05.11.2014 of this Office, you have paid to the Corporation, an earnest money of Rs. 9,97,500/- as mentioned therein on the date 21.11.2014. The Corporation had issued an Allotment Letter No.1100, dated 12.02.2015 and directed to pay the amount of Rs. 29,92,500/- being the balance amount for the said plot of land, within prescribed period. However, you did not pay the said amount within the prescribed period and therefore, as you did not pay the remaining amount for the plot of land as per the Condition No.7 in the Offer Letter and Condition No. 3 in the Allotment Letter, the said Allotment Letter is revoked and the amount paid towards the earnest money is forfeited, which may please be noted. Yours faithfully Regional Officer, M. I. D. C., Nashik. 6. The petitioner for a period of almost four years, did not take any action whatsoever, against such communication dated 21 December 2016 received by the petitioner from the MIDC. It appears that on 1 February 2020 the petitioner made a representation to the Hon’ble Minister for Industries. As the petitioner could not get relief in regard to the earnest money deposit, the petitioner has filed this petition. 7. A reply affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents to oppose the petition in which it is iner alia submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs as prayed for. It is contended that the action of the MIDC was taken in accordance with condition No.7 of the offer letter dated 5 November 2014 as also condition No.3 pf the allotment letter dated 12 December 2015. It is stated that after a long lapse of such action being taken by the MIDC, the present petition has been filed on 6 May 2022 i.e. about five years after cancellation of the allotment and forfeiture of the earnest money deposit. It is stated that after a long lapse of such action being taken by the MIDC, the present petition has been filed on 6 May 2022 i.e. about five years after cancellation of the allotment and forfeiture of the earnest money deposit. It is hence contended the same is not maintainable, as the cause of action even otherwise is barred by limitation. In short, it has been contended that the petition is clearly barred by the principles of delay and laches. 8. It is on such backdrop, we have heard learned Counsel for the parties, we have also perused the record. 9. In our opinion, as observed hereinabove, the petitioner is certainly not entitled to any relief as we discuss hereinbelow. 10. The petitioner applied for allotment of a plot of land and in pursuance of such application, the petitioner was issued a communication dated 5 November 2014 calling upon the petitioner to pay earnest money deposit so that the allotment of the plot can be taken forward. The petitioner accepted the communication and deposited the earnest money deposit (EMD) with the respondents – MIDC on 20 November 2014, in pursuance of which the offer of the petitioner was accepted and the allotment letter dated 12 February 2015 was issued with a specific terms and conditions as noted by us, which incorporated forfeiture of earnest money deposit. In our opinion, once such offer was made and the same was accepted, there exists a contract between the parties in regard to allotment of the said plot of land, considering the said offer and its acceptance. The petitioner, however, failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter inasmuch as within 30 days from the date of allotment letter dated 12 February 2015 the petitioner did not deposit the balance amount of Rs. 29,29,500/- as payable to MIDC for such plot of land. Also as clearly seen, the petitioner was not interested to avail of the allotment of the plot in question. Apart from failure to deposit the balance amount within 30 days also there does not appear to be any application for extension being made by the petitioner. 29,29,500/- as payable to MIDC for such plot of land. Also as clearly seen, the petitioner was not interested to avail of the allotment of the plot in question. Apart from failure to deposit the balance amount within 30 days also there does not appear to be any application for extension being made by the petitioner. In fact the communication/letter dated 31 March 2016 is addressed by the petitioner to the respondent which was almost after one year from the allotment letter, it is clearly seen that the petitioner was not interested in allotment of plot of land and desired to have refund of the earnest money deposit. Further the correspondence, as we have noted above, also shows that the petitioner insisted for allotment of a specific plot, different from what was allotted to it and on such consideration did not make payment of the balance amount, thereby creating a situation and as rightly contended on behalf of the MIDC, that the plot as allotted to the petitioner also could not be re-allotted to someone else. It is on such premise the present is filed praying for the reliefs as noted by us hereinabove. 11. We find that the parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the contract. The MIDC has acted in pursuance of the terms and conditions of the allotment as set out in the initial offer letter dated 5 November 2014 and the letter dated 12 February 2015 by which the MIDC has put the petitioner and/or the parties had agreed to the terms of forfeiture of earnest money deposit, if the conditions as set out were not fulfilled more particularly in the present case the condition of payments of the balance amount to be made in availing of the plot as allotted to the petitioner. 12. There is another reason that this Court ought not to interfere with the present proceedings namely of the inordinate delay and laches in filing the present petition. The record indicates that the impugned communication was issued to the petitioner forfeiting the earnest money deposit on 21 December 2016, which was received by the petitioner on 29 December 2016. Even assuming that there was a further communication dated 2 August 2017 reiterating what has been stated by the MIDC by a letter dated 21 December 2016, the petitioner ought to have moved the Court within the reasonable time. Even assuming that there was a further communication dated 2 August 2017 reiterating what has been stated by the MIDC by a letter dated 21 December 2016, the petitioner ought to have moved the Court within the reasonable time. The petitioner has filed this petition on 6 May 2022 which is after the delay of almost more than five years after the cause of action to the petitioner has arisen. The petitioner has not furnished any explanation whatsoever much less satisfactory to explain the delay and laches except for the following averments in paragraph 17 of the petition which read thus:- “17. The Petitioner state that due to delay in decision by respondent petitioner caused delay in project and forfeiture of earnest money vanish the capital of petitioner.” 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Magma Agro Products Pvt. vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors., Writ Petition No.10014/2024, dt.29/6/2016. However, having perused such decision, in our opinion, the facts in the said decision are completely distinct from the facts in the present case. Also there was no issue in regard to delay and laches. We are, therefore, not persuaded to accept the petitioner’s contention that the said decision would become applicable in the facts of the present case and more particularly for the reasons as set out hereinabove by us. 14. The principles in regard to the damages and compensation in the matters of contract are well settled by the decisions of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Fateh Chand vs. Balkishan Das, AIR 1963 SC 1405 and in Maula Bux vs. Union ofIndia, (1969) 2 SCC 554 as also reiterated by the Supreme Court in Kailash Nath Associates vs. DDA, (2015) 4 SCC 135 as also followed by this Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. Sunfield Resources Pty. Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 10023. 15. Thus, the reliefs in the writ petition, which are purely in the nature of money claim and for contractual damages, cannot be granted in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The condition of forfeiture of the earnest money deposit was a contractual condition. Sunfield Resources Pty. Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 10023. 15. Thus, the reliefs in the writ petition, which are purely in the nature of money claim and for contractual damages, cannot be granted in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The condition of forfeiture of the earnest money deposit was a contractual condition. Even assuming that a suit was to be filed by the petitioner, the petitioner would be required to make out a case as to why the respondents were not entitled for forfeiture of the earnest money deposit which was the quantum of damages as agreed between the parties in the contract in question. Such relief even in a civil suit, could be granted only after the plaintiff proves the damages entitled to him. Hence, certainly such relief cannot be granted in the proceedings of writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition cannot be entertained. It is accordingly rejected. No costs.