Final admission hearing in a writ petition seeking certiorari and mandamus. The respondent gave an undertaking to complete payments, leading the Court to allow the petition.
Rule returned rule absolute; no further judicial determination required following respondent's undertaking.
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
UNREPORTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.587 OF 2010
Moreshwar Builders and Developers,
A partnership firm registered under
the Indian Partnership Act, 1932
having its office at A-001, Vastu
Apartment, Dindayal Road,
Dombivali (West)-421 202. ... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
and others
... Respondents.
Mr.S.S.Thombre, advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.N.B.Khandare, Govt. Pleader for the State.
CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND
: S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ.
Date : 12.04.2010.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V.Hardas,J.)
1.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
2
the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, this petition is heard finally at the
stage of admission.
2.The petitioner prays for issuance of a
writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside
the impugned communication dated 2.1.2010 issued
by the Respondent No.4. The petitioner also prays
for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the
Respondents to release the amount including the
amount of fine as well as the amount of the
running bills. The petitioner prays for
restraining the Respondents from taking any
action as per letter dated 2.1.2010.
3.On notice of this petition being issued
to the Respondents, the Respondents have filed
their affidavit-in-reply. At para 23 of the
affidavit-in-reply, which is reproduced :
"There are no intention of the
Respondent to assign the work to any
local contractor by increasing the
rates. In fact, the Respondent want
3
that petitioner should complete the
work. In each and every letter
written to the petitioner the
Respondent has reiterated this point.
Even now also the petitioner can
complete the work at the earliest
possible. The Respondent will
release all of his payments as
admissibleaspercontract
conditions."
4.In the aforesaid affidavit-in-reply, it
is stated that the Respondents have no intention
of assigning the work to any local contractor and
in fact, want the petitioner to complete the
work. It is further stated that the petitioner
should complete the work at the earliest possible
opportunity and the Respondents would release all
his payment as admissible under the contract
condition. We accept the aforesaid statement
made at para 23 as an undertaking to the Court.
5.According to us, in the light of the
aforesaid statement which we have accepted as an
4
undertaking to the Court, no relief survives for
determination in this petition. Consequently, we
allow the petition by making Rule absolute in
terms of the statement made at para 23 which we
have accepted an undertaking to the Court.
6.In the additional affidavit filed on
behalf of the Respondents, it is stated that the
petitioner himself had shown his inability to
execute the remaining work on account of illness
and had annexed a Doctor's certificate dated
5.5.2009. It is further stated in the additional
affidavit that as per provisions of clause (3) of
said agreement, the Respondent authorities are
also not liable but entitled to take action
against a contractor like the petitioner. If we
do not wish to dilate in respect of the
additional affidavit. The additional affidavit
deals with the terms and conditions of the
contract as well as the rights of the Respondents
to take appropriate action against the
petitioner. We are concerned with the reliefs
5
prayed for by the petitioner in this petition.
(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)(P.V.HARDAS,J.)
asp/office/wp587.10
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash an impugned communication and grant mandamus for payment release despite the respon
Moreshwar Builders and Developers
The State of Maharashtra
P.V.Hardas
S.V.Gangapurwala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court