Disposed

Kamal Gulab Mirchandani and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2010PIL/6/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL filed under Article 226 questioned whether Government Resolutions mandating approval for infrastructural projects costing over Rs. 25 Crores apply to statutory corporations. The Court held that these executive instructions do not automatically apply to statutory corporations without specific statutory directions.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of with the clarification that Government Resolutions are not applicable to Statutory Corporations unless specific statutory directions issue to them.

Kamal Gulab Mirchandani and Anr. Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

PIL6-10 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INT. LITIGATION NO.6 OF 2010

¶3

Kamal G. Mirchandani .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶4

Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Shashank Fadia for petitioner Mr.Kiran Gandhi i/b. Little & Co. for respondent No.14 Mr.R.P.Behre, AGP for respondent Nos.1, 2, 9, 10, 15, 17 and 18 Mr.A.P.Chavan i/b. Navdeep Vora and Associates for respondent No.11 Mr.L.M.Acharya for respondent No.13 Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for respondent Nos. 12 and 19.

¶5

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. Date : 12^th August 2010.

¶6

P.C.

¶7

1] In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner contends that the State Government Resolutions directing that the proposals/ projects for infrastructural facilities estimated to cost more

¶8

than Rs.25 Crores require to be approved by the Infrastructure Facility Committee of Ministers of State Government apply not only to Government departments but also to all Government undertakings and

¶9

PIL6-10 2

¶10

Corporations, including Statutory Corporations such as Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai Metropolitan Development Regional Authority (MMRDA) and Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., i.e. Respondent Nos.11, 12 and 13.

¶11

2] By order dated 7^th April 2010, this Court had required the State Government to clarify whether the above Government Resolutions are confined to Government departments and companies owned by the Government or whether they are also applicable to statutory bodies set up under the various Statutes.

¶12

3] After the aforesaid order, affidavit in reply has been filed by the Deputy Secretary to the State Government in the Planning Department and the following stand is indicated:-

¶13

“4. In the above circumstances, it is submitted that if

¶14

the budgeted cost of a project is more than Rs.25 Crores then

¶15

the project of any department, Government Undertakings/

¶16

PIL6-10 3

¶17

Corporations, has to be approved by the above Cabinet SubCommittee on Infrastructure. For taking up the same on BOT basis this condition is mandatory.”

¶18

4] At the hearing of this petition, the learned Counsel for petitioner submits that in view of the above stand adopted in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, it is clear that Government Resolutions, requiring sanction by the Infrastructure Facility Committee are applicable to Statutory Corporation also.

¶19

4] On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 13 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., and CIDCO – respondent No.19 have opposed the petition and submitted that the very object of establishing such statutory corporations is to confer the autonomy on them and, therefore, if the instructions contained in Government Resolutions are treated as applicable to such statutory corporations there will be no autonomy left with them as the cost of almost all the projects of such statutory corporations exceeds Rs.25

¶20

PIL6-10 4

¶21

Crores.

¶22

6] It is further submitted that the Statutory Corporation have their own statutory Regulations and guidelines for such infrastructure projects and it is not that the Statutory corporations undertake such projects without following any norms or guidelines. It is further submitted that when the State Government has not issued any specific directions or instructions to the concerned statutory corporations, the petitioner has no locus standi to urge such contention.

¶23

7] Learned AGP appearing for State submits that he has no other instructions beyond the stand adopted by the State Government in the affidavit in reply dated 22^nd July 2010.

¶24

8] Having heard the learned Counsel for parties, we are of the view that when the Government Resolutions in the nature of executive

¶25

Instructions, make the instructions applicable to Government departments, Undertakings and Corporations, it cannot be assumed that

¶26

PIL6-10 5

¶27

such instructions are applicable to statutory corporations also. There are provisions in the statutes establishing/ creating such Corporations conferring such powers on the State Government to issue directions/ instructions to statutory corporations for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Act and it may be open to the State Government to issue such directions and instructions in the exercise of such statutory

¶28

powers. We may not be treated to have expressed any opinion that the State Government cannot issue such statutory directions or instructions. All that we are called upon to decide in this petition purporting to be PIL is whether the Government Resolutions in the nature of executive instructions requiring such proposals/ projects of Government department/ Undertaking/ Corporation to be submitted for approval of the Infrastructure Facility Committee are necessarily applicable to the Statotury Corporations. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is no indication in the Government Resolutions under consideration that the instructions contained therein are applicable to Statutory Corporations.

¶29

PIL6-10 6

¶30

9] The petition is accordingly disposed of with a clarification that we are not called upon to go into the larger question about power of Government to issue such instructions/ directions under the relevant statutory rules.

¶31

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶32

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)

Kamal Gulab Mirchandani and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Gulab Mirchandani and Anr. v. 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

Vilas Kedari Nikam Vs Rajnikant Appaji Shinde and Ors.

Santosh Daundkar Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Sanghtana and 1 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yogesh Subhash Kakade Vs Dipti Ashok Chavdhari and Ors.

Avinash Ganpatrao Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Thacker Vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and 3 Ors.

Avinash Ganpatrao Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Manisha Sanjay Waskar Vs Anil @ Bajirao Balaso Dhavan(Panari) and Ors.

Junot Chagas Pereira and Ors. Vs Omprakash Navani and Ors.

Swaran S. Chawla Vs Mukesh S. Chawla

Dinesh D. Parmar Vs Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shashikant Pandurang Patil Vs Shri. Balwant Shankar Patil and Others

State of Maharashtra through the Urban Development Department Mantralaya Mumbai and Ors. Vs Adi Dara Patel and Ors.