Dismissed

Saifee a. Contractor v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jan 2010WP/1448/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged the State's proceedings against his licensee regarding unlicensed use of a telephone booth. The Court held the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the State's decision due to the absence of a direct contract between them and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the State's decision without a direct contract.

Saifee a. Contractor Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1448 OF 2009

¶4

Saifee A. Contractor. .... Petitioner.

¶5

vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Uday Wanrujikar for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. G.W. Mattos, AGP., for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶9

CORAM : J.N. PATEL, ACTING, C.J. &

¶10

B.R. GAVAI, J.

¶11

DATE : 11TH JANUARY, 2010.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The petitioner is a member of the respondent no. 3 Association

¶15

which was allotted a telephone booth in the premises of Mantralaya Extension Building Compound. The parties have entered into an agreement wherein it has

¶16

been clearly spelt out as an agreement for use of book stall/public call office for

¶17

¶18

commercial purpose.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that he is a licensee of respondent

¶20

no. 3 and has been paying the licence fee to the respondent no. 3 regularly.

¶21

Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent

¶22

State cannot classify the booth allocated to respondent no. 3 as for commercial purpose and charged rent of Rs. 15/- per sq. ft. as per notification dated 16.10.2003. At the most they can charge the rent at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. which is meant for voluntary organisation and political parties and, therefore, the respondent no. 3 has not paid the licence fee to the respondent-State because of which the petitioner will be thrown out and made to suffer for no fault of his. It is contended that though the licence fee has not been paid after September,

¶23

2008 for which the respondent-State has initiated proceedings against respondent no. 3 as well its licensee for eviction.

¶24

We do not find that the petitioner has any locus standi to challenge the decision of the respondent-State with whom he has no contract.

¶25

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that because respondent no. 3 is not agitating the issue, he is required to approach this Court. We are not inclined to accept this contention in absence of any contract between the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 and 2. It will not be proper for this Court to entertain a writ petition in the matter. The petition is

¶26

¶27

dismissed.

¶28

(J.N. PATEL, ACTING, C.J.)

¶29

(B.R. GAVAI, J.)

Saifee a. Contractor v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saifee a. Contractor v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Kiran Dhansing Rajput Vs City Realcom Ltd.

Kiran Dhansing Rajput Vs City Limouzines India Ltd.

Ravi G. Nagamat Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Government Quarters Residents Associates and 1 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Ajeet K. Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Ispat Industries Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.