The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition challenging the allotment of shops by the Municipal Council, Shirur. The court found no merit in the claim that reservation policy was not followed and affirmed the council's actions.
The petition was dismissed on the grounds that the tender process was not contrary to rules.
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
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
P.I. L. NO. 92 OF 2007
Prof. Padmakar G. Kharat. .. Petitioner.
vs.
The State of Maharashtra
& Ors. .. Respondents.
Petitioner in person.
Mr. R.S. Apte for respondent no.3.
Mr. V.P. Malvankar, AGP., for R. Nos. 1, 2 and 7 to 9.
CORAM: J.N. PATEL &
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE: 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2007.
P.C.
. Heard.
2. The Petitioner has challenged the allotment of
shops by the 3rd respondent Municipal Council, Shirur
on the ground that it has not followed the reservation
policy while allotting the shops and, therefore, the
allotment of shops under tender notice dated 25.5.2007
deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Court
2
should direct the respondent municipal council to
reserve shops for Schedule Caste, Scheduled Tribes,
Weaker Sections, Mahila Associations, Book Stall
holders, Mentally retarded and handicapped persons,
devadasis, ex-militarymen,etc.,
3. In the affidavit in reply the municipal council
has specifically stated that out of the total 32 shops
allotted by the respondent no. 3 municipal council, 12
shops are allotted to persons including women, other
backward classes, nomadic tribes, etc. In so far as
the contention of the petitioner for reservation for
book stalls is concerned, it is submitted that the same
will be observed while doing allotment of the shops in
Library building of the respondent no. 3 and the
respondent no. 3 has taken all the necessary care for
considering allotment of shops to all categories and
all the categories had an adequate opportunity to
compete in the allotment under the tender notice. In
so far as the provisions for reserved category people
are concerned, it is submitted that the respondent no.
3 has implemented various welfare schemes by
appointment of Special Committee and, therefore, the
grievance made by the petitioner does not survive.
4. The petitioner submits that he has not
participated in the tender notice but has moved this
Court in public interest. We find that the allotment
of shops by inviting applications under the tender
3
notice cannot be said to be contrary to rules and,
therefore, we do not find any merit in the petition.
The petitioner, who appears in person, has referred to
the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case
of Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. The International Airport
Authority of India and others,reported in AIR 1979 SC
1628. There is no quarrel over the principles laid
down by the Supreme Court in the matter of allotment of
shops. On the other hand, the decision clearly spells
out the limited jurisdiction this Court has to exercise
its power of judicial review in such matters.
Therefore, the petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(J.N. Patel, J. )
(A.A. Sayed, J. )
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the allotment of shops by tender violates reservation policy.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. The International Airport Authority of India and othersReferred¶2
AIR 1979 SC 1628 · Who else cites this
Prof. Padmakar G. Kharat
The State of Maharashtra
Municipal Council, Shirur
J.N. Patel
A.A. Sayed
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