This short order deals with a writ petition regarding government purchases. Counsel assured authorities would adhere to rules, leading the court to dispose of the petition by fixing a timeline for an enquiry and responsibility fixation.
Respondent State to complete enquiry and fix responsibility within six months.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
P.I.L. No. 24 of 2007
Milan Vasant Mhatre ..Petitioner
vs.
1. The state of Maharashtra
and others ..Respondents
Smt.Neeta P.Karnik for petitioner.
Shri P.M.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent no.1
Shri Shaturvedi i/b Chaturvedi and Associates for
respondent no.2
CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR C.J.
AND S.C.DHARMADHIKARIJ.
27th June, 2007
P.C.
1. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 has
stated that the vehicles in question were not purchased
strictly in accordance with the relevant Govt. Rules.
However, they were purchased on business principle of
better performance and economics in terms of petrol
consumption. He further states that the Corporation has
taken a policy decision that in future they would act only
in accordance with the Government Rules and no purchases
would be effected contrary thereto.
2. The learned Counsel for the State states that State
Govt. vide their letter dated 14th March, 2007 has
already informed not only to the Corporation in question
but to all other Corproation to cancel the Resolutions for
purchasing of cars in the manner contrary to the State
policy and the Rules for purchase of such cars. The
learned Counsel appearing for the State, however, makes a
statement that they will look into the matter and fix the
responsibility in accordance with the Rules. He also
states that the Government will also examine the matter
with regard to fixation of the upper limits for
maintenance and repairs and lay down a procedure for
sanctioning of the amount. It is also stated on behalf of
the Corporation that it has already resolved to buy the
Fire Engines, Ambulance and Hearst Vans keeping in view
the public interest. It is also stated that a provision
has been made in the current budget and immediately after
sanction of the budget within one month such purchase
would be effected.
3. In view of the statements made by the learned Counsel
appearing for the parties, we do not think that any
fruitful purpose would be achieved by keeping this
petition pending or by issuing further directions in the
matter. It is sufficient to note that the learned Counsel
have spoken to the authorities and have assured the Court
that the authorities would act in accordance with the
rules and would not waste public money. The respondent
State shall abide by the statement and complete the
enquiry and fix the responsibility within six months from
today. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(CHIEFJUSTICE)
(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should stay a case where government representatives have assured compliance with rules.
Milan Vasant Mhatre
The state of Maharashtra
Swatanter Kumar
S.C. Dharmadhikari
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