Dismissed

Vijay S/O Kamalkishore Agrawal v. the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Dec 2010PIL/45/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenges the Akola Municipal Corporation's awarding of an octroi collection contract. The Court held that since the final contracted amount was higher than the undisputed upset price, the decision was in consonance with State Government guidelines and required no prior approval, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Vijay S/O Kamalkishore Agrawal Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

PIL No. 45/2010

¶4

Vijay Kamalkishore Agrawal .vs.The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders.

¶6

Mr. R.L.Khapre, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.W.Sambre, G.P. For R-1. Mr. C.S.Kaptan, Advocate for R- 2 and 3. Mr. N.A.Gaikwad, Advocate for R-4.

¶7

CORAM : V.C.DAGA & A.B.CHAUDHARI,JJ DATE : 16.12.2010

¶8

Perused petition.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

This petition is directed against the action of the Akola Municipal Corporation in the matter of awarding contract in favour of respondent no. 4 with respect to the collection of Octroi.

¶11

The factual matrix reveals that as per the guidelines laid down by the State Government, the Municipal Councils and Corporations are permitted to issue tender for appointment of agents to collect octroi. As per guidelines framed by the State Government, the Municipal Authorities are supposed to fix upset price 10% higher than the contracted amount in the preceding financial year. If one goes through the figures, then one finds that in the previous year the

¶12

¶13

contracted amount was in the sum of Rs. 29.61 crores. If it is increased by 10%, then the amount would be Rs. 33 crores.

¶14

The upset price ought to have been either Rs. 33 crores or around thereof. However, the Municipal Corporation, with a view to get better deal, sought to fix upset price more 20% more than the contracted amount of the previous year, with the result; Municipal Corporation did not get any offer to reach the upset price fixed in the tender. However, after negotiations the contracted amount could be settled at Rs. 34.40 crores, which answers the guidelines laid down by the State Government as referred hereinabove.

¶15

In the above peculiar facts and circumstances of case, since the contracted amount is beyond Rs. 33 crore ( which could have been the upset price), we do not find any fault with the decision of the Municipal Corporation in accepting the said subject tender which is above the upset price which ought to have been determined by the Corporation. Since the tender acceptance is in consonance with the guidelines laid down by the State Government, it was not be necessary for the Corporation to approach the State Government for prior approval.

¶16

¶17

In the above view of the matter, the petition is devoid of any substance, as such it is liable to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶18

JUDGE JUDGE

¶19

patle

Vijay S/O Kamalkishore Agrawal v. the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay S/O Kamalkishore Agrawal v. the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay S/O Kamalkishor Somani Vs Union of India Thr. Its Secty., and Anr.

Arvind Maruti Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Satpati Krida Association and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Arvind Maruti Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ansar Ahmad Abdul Sattar Qureshi Vs Amravati Municipal Corporation Thr. Its Municipal Commissioner and 5 Ors.

Lower Painganga Dharan Virodhi Sangharsha Samiti Thr. Its Convener Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and 7 Ors.

Madhukar Tulshiram Pawar Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Mrs. Kirti Atul Nipankar Vs Principle Secty., Min. of Health and 3 Ors.

Dharmraj Maharaj Education Society, Thr President, Karanja Lad Vs the State of Maha. Thr Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Joseph Igiotius Rodrigues, Ex Clerk, PWD Vs State of Mah. Thr. the Secty., and 3 Ors.

Gulab S/O Ramkrishna Jivtode and Anr. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Dept. of Irrigation and Anr.

Union of India Thr. Its Secty and 2 Otrs Vs Rajesh S/O Rambhau Kanpure

Ranbhid S/O Pandurang Humne Vs State of Maha. Thr Secretary, Dept of Education, Mumbai and Others

Shri. Suresh Mahadeorao Shambharkar and Others Vs the P.O. School Tribunal, Chandrapur and Others