Dismissed

Prashant Subhash Desarda v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jun 2009WP/2040/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL filed for termination of a contract and recovery of misappropriated funds, the High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous since the Corporation had already initiated recovery action. The claim for an investigation committee was held to be via representation.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed regarding termination and recovery claims; liberty granted to submit representation for appointment of investigation committee.

Prashant Subhash Desarda Vs the State of Mah… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2040 OF 2009

¶5

Prashant s/o Subhash Desarda .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Shri A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondent No.1 Shri A.M.Karad, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶9

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ

¶10

DATE : 11th JUNE, 2009

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed ostensibly in public interest by the petitioner praying for the reliefs :

¶13

“(C) By appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No.2 may be directed to terminate the agreement dated 07-02-2004, executed by the present respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No.4;

¶14

(E) By appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent No.2 be directed to recover the amount, illegally paid to the respondent No.4 along with the penalty as per the terms of the contract.”

¶15

¶16

Shri A.M.Karad, learned Counsel for the respondent – Corporation has tendered a copy of the notice issued to the Contractor which is marked “X” for the purpose of identification and copy of the letter issued by Deputy Commissioner, Tax Assessment, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad which is marked “X-1” for the purpose of identification. In the document marked “X”, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad has called upon the Contractor to deposit an amount of Rs. 44,43,360/-; failing which action would be initiated for the recovery of the said amount. In the communication at “X-1”, it is intimated that both civil and criminal action be initiated against the Contractor for the loss which is caused to the Corporation. In the light of the aforesaid communication, according to us, the reliefs which the petitioner has prayed for at prayer clause (C) and (E), therefore, stand squarely granted. The petition, therefore, in respect of those prayer clauses has been rendered infructuous. In respect of prayer clause (D), i.e the relief which is claimed for directing the appointment of a Committee for investigating and taking appropriate action against the persons responsible for the misappropriation of funds, according to us, it would be open for the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent – Corporation in this behalf. In the event of submission of such representation, the respondent – Corporation shall decide the same in accordance with law and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner.

¶17

In the light of what has been stated by us above, according to us, no interference is called for in this petition and, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. In the

¶18

¶19

circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

¶20

The amount of Rs.15,000/- deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner.

¶21

( R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.)

¶22

(vvr/wp2040.09)

Prashant Subhash Desarda v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Subhash Desarda v. the State of Mah 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

Waman Pandhari Tayde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Tukaram Laxman Suse Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Komal D/O. Sunil Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra through It Secretary

Smita Sanjivan Molwane Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Maroti Narayanrao Pisal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Chandrakala Uttamrao Phad Vs the State of Mah and Ors.