Dismissed

Umanand Ganesh Singh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Oct 2007PIL/112/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged a 1988 Government of Maharashtra resolution approving a scheme. The petition was dismissed due to inordinate and unexplained delay (laches). The Court declined to examine merits, noting a prior dismissal of a similar challenge in 2007.

What did the court decide?

The Petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches; authorities are not prevented from looking into a prior letter.

Umanand Ganesh Singh Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.112 OF 2007

¶5

Umanand Ganesh Singh Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶7

..Petitioner.

¶8

..Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Prakash Shah with Ms. Archana Gupte for the Petitioner. Mr. P.M. Patil, AGP for the State.

¶10

Mr. D.H. Mehta i/b Mr. Nalin M. Shah for Respondent NO.4.

¶11

CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶12

18^th October, 2007.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶15

India the Petitioner has impugned the approval of the scheme granted by the Government of Maharashtra vide its Resolution No. TST-1088/(2805)/D-XIII dated 19^th August, 1988. Obviously the Petitioner has approached this Court after such an inordinate delay which is even unexplained. In the entire Writ Petition there is not even a single averment as to why the Petitioner has approached the Court belatedly. However, a letter is stated to have been written to the Additional Collector and competent authority (ULC)

¶16

¶17

on 12^th May, 2007 pointing out certain defects in the sanctioning of the scheme and its implementation. We may also notice that counsel appearing for the Respondents has stated that the present Writ Petition is abuse of the process of the Court and some of the Petitioners have even earlier challenged the scheme which is sought to be questioned in these proceedings in Writ Petition 2700 of 2007 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 27^th April, 2007. It is not necessary for us to dilate on the factual aspect of the case or the issues raised. The present Petition certainly suffers from the defect of delay and laches and there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the exercise of its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.

¶18

It has also been stated on behalf of Respondent No.4 that the building has already been constructed and that the scheme was implemented in accordance with the resolution passed by the competent authority. We have already stated that we are not going into the merits of the case and would dismiss the Petition on the ground of delay and latches itself. The Petition is dismissed. However, nothing prevents the authorities to look into the letter dated 12th May 2007 in accordance with law.

¶19

¶20

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶21

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Umanand Ganesh Singh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umanand Ganesh Singh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yusuf Khan Ghouse Khan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shubhangi Nishikant Gurav Vs the Directorate of Technical Education and Anr.

Tarun Jamnadas Ghia Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Amarsinh Jotyajirao Jadhavrao Vs Union of India and Ors.

Just Society Vs Union of India and Ors.

Manikrao Shivajirao Kokate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Just Society Vs Union of India and Ors.

Fancy Corporation Ltd. Vs Muktabai S. Kalas

The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Vs the Maharashtra Electricity Regulation Commission

Sumer Corporation Vs State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Dr. Rajendra Sadanand Burma and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prabhakar Anant Repal Vs Government of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anil Kumar R. Shukla Vs State of Maharshtra and 5 Ors.