Petitioner challenged the Municipal Commissioner's proposal to modify tender conditions concerning additional security deposits for contracts exceeding Rs. 5 crores. The court found no grounds for third-party interference and dismissed the petition without entertaining it.
Petition dismissed with no reasons to be entertained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 143 OF 2006
Mohan S. Madkaikar
...Petitioner
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 2 Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. A.S. Rao, instructed by Mr. M.S. Kumthekar for the petitioner. Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, with Mrs. P.A. Purandare for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. K.R. Belosay, Government Pleader, for respondent No.3.
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE, Ag. C.J., & V.M. KANADE, J. DATE: JANUARY 18, 2007 .
P.C.
Heard Mr. Rao in support of the petition. Mr. K.K. Singhvi appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. K.R. Belosay for respondent No.3.
-2-
further additional amounts towards deposit would not be insisted. It will have to be seen that at any point of time whatever security deposit is required for work of five crores, such security deposit would have to be retained with the Corporation. We do not think that this is a matter where any third person should interfere. No reason to entertain. Petition is dismissed.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
V.M. KANADE, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Municipal Commissioner's proposal to modify tender conditions regarding security deposits for works above Rs. 5 crores.
Mohan S. Madkaikar
The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3
H.L. GOKHALE
V.M. KANADE
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
