Disposed

Krishnai Valu Vahatukdar Sevabhavi Sanstha v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Dec 2010WP/9632/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay admitted a writ petition challenging an auction notice for sand extraction contracts. Noting the petitioner's grievance regarding the notice's non-compliance with a Government Resolution was redressed, the court permitted the petitioner's non-participating members to bid in the upcoming auction.

What did the court decide?

Direction that members of the petitioner who did not participate in the auction due to the procedural lacuna shall be permitted to participate in the auction to be held subsequently.

Krishnai Valu Vahatukdar Sevabhavi Sanstha Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2010)

srk

wp-9632-10.sxw

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 9632 OF 2010

¶6

Krishnai Walu Vahatukdar Sevabhavi Sanstha ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr.Sanjeev P. Kadam for the petitioner. Mr.V.D. Patil, Government Pleader for State.

¶8

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. KATHAWALLA , J.

¶9

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

¶10

P.C.

¶11

This writ petition was filed on 4th December, 2010 for challenging the auction notice dated 19th November, 2010 issued by the respondent No.2 for auction of sand extraction contracts of 208 plots in Satara District for 2010-2011.

¶12

The main grievance in the petition is that the respondents had not complied with clause 4(b) of the Government Resolution dated 25th October, 2010 i.e. providing for survey of plots in auction and also indicating the plots where mechanized devices would be permitted. Now, that grievance of the petitioner has admittedly been redressed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that on account of the above lacuna in the auction notice, members of the petitioner had not submitted their offer and therefore, they be permitted to participate in the auction.

srk

wp-9632-10.sxw

The learned Government Pleader states that the auction was initially scheduled on 8th December, 2010 but on account of the orders passed in this petition, the auction could not be held and now the auction would be held very soon. The respondents will, therefore, now issue a short notice for holding auction on any other date in continuation of the auction notice dated 19th November, 2010.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the proposal sent by the Collector, Satara on 10th December, 2010 which is annexed to the affidavit in reply filed by the District Mining Officer, Satara will have to be decided by the State Government and, therefore, the members of the petitioner will apply without prejudice to their rights and contentions on the basis of the said proposal.

¶18

Accordingly, we dispose of this petition after recording the statement of the learned Government Pleader and after taking into consideration the reservation of the petitioner and with the direction that the members of the petitioner who have not participated in the auction in view of the above lacuna in the Government procedure, shall now be permitted to participate in the auction to be held hereafter.

¶19

Petition accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶20

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶21

S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

Krishnai Valu Vahatukdar Sevabhavi Sanstha v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnai Valu Vahatukdar Sevabhavi Sanstha v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sayed Safar Ali and Ors. Vs Kusum C. More and Ors.

M/S. Mirasu Marketing Ltd. Vs Franch Herbs Technologics Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Velji Mawji Satwara Vs M.V. Chaturvedi and Ors. Yatin Trivedi and Anr.

Arvind Maruti Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Akhil Bhartiya Marathi Patrakar Parishad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

m/s shree krishna woollen mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs vinod rawal and and Ors.