Disposed

Vitthal Dattatraya Khadse v. the State of Mah. Thr. Secty. and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Dec 2011PIL/39/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a PIL regarding operators appointed to run SETU Centres in Yavatmal District. Noting that some contracts were terminated due to violation of terms, the court directed the Collector to undertake a fresh exercise for appointing new operators under the 2002 Government Resolution.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Collector, Yavatmal, to undertake fresh exercise for appointing operators to run SETU Centres after terminating contracts with existing operators.

Vitthal Dattatraya Khadse Vs the State of Mah. Thr… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

pil39.11.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

¶4

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶5

PIL No. 39 of 2011

¶6

Petitioner : Vitthal Khadse

¶7

versus

¶8

Respondents: State of Maharashtra and anr

¶9

Mr A. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner

¶10

Mr N. W. Sambre, Government Pleader for respondents

¶11

Coram : D. D. Sinha & A. P. Bhangale, JJ

¶12

Dated : 21^st December 2011

¶13

P. C.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no.2 invited bid for appointment of operators for SETU Centre by issuing advertisement. M/s Limra Services, Darwha; M/s Harsh Multi Services, Aurangabad and M/s Rajmata Jijau Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Jalna were successful bidders and, therefore, were appointed as

¶16

pil39.11.odt

¶17

¶18

operators for Darwha, Kelapur, Wani and Pusad Divisions respectively on BoT basis. It is contended that all these operators violated conditions of contract and, therefore, appropriate action was required to be taken against these operators in accordance with procedure and law. Since the Collector failed to do so, petitioner filed the present PIL for necessary direction.

¶19

Learned Government Pleader has submitted that in view of the complaints received, the Collector has already issued notices to M/s Harsh Multi Services, Aurangabad and M/s Rajmata Jijau Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Jalna. On scrutiny, it was found that they did not carry on their activity as per the terms and conditions of the contract and, therefore, their contracts were terminated on 11^th August 2011. It is further contended that so far as M/s Limra Services, Darwha is concerned, the Collector, yavatmal has already issued notice to the said Company and after receipt of reply, appropriate action in accordance with law shall be taken against M/s Limra Services, Darwha, if necessary and the result thereof shall be communicated to the petitioner.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Scheme floated by the Government by Government Resolution dated 23.8.2002 for establishment of E-Governance Centre at each Taluka of Yavatmal District is a good scheme which is in the larger interest of the society where all types of information is available and can be obtained by

¶21

pil39.11.odt

¶22

¶23

the residents of those Talukas. It is submitted that if the contract of all these three operators is terminated, in that case, the Collectors concerned be directed to undertake fresh exercise for appointment of operators in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 23.8.2002.

¶24

In view of the above-referred facts and circumstances, it appears that the above three operators were appointed to run SETU Centres in 16 taluqas of Yavatmal District. Learned Government Pleader has submitted that the Collector received some serious complaints about working of all these operators and, therefore, after due verification by the Collector, it was noticed that M/s Harsh Multi Services, Aurangabad and M/s Rajmata Jijau Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Jalna were not carrying out the activities as per the terms and conditions of the contract and, therefore, their contracts came to be terminated. Notice is also issued to M/s Limra Services, Darwha and learned Government Pleader has stated that appropriate action shall be taken against the said Company, if necessary.

¶25

In view of these facts, grievance of the petitioner made in this petition, in our view, has been redressed at this stage. It is no doubt true that the Scheme of establishment of SETU Centres at Tahsil places evolved by the Government vide Government Resolution dated 23.8.2002 is undoubtedly is in the larger interest of the general public and if the Scheme is still holding the field, we direct the Collector, Yavatmal to undertake

¶26

pil39.11.odt

¶27

¶28

fresh exercise for appointment of operators to run SETU Centres at Taluqa places in Yavatmal District, if not already undertaken, after terminating the contracts entered with the then and existing operators.

¶29

With these observations, we dispose of the present Public

¶30

Interest Litigation.

¶31

A. P. BHANGALE, J D. D. SINHA, J

¶32

joshi

Vitthal Dattatraya Khadse v. the State of Mah. Thr. Secty. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Dattatraya Khadse v. the State of Mah. Thr. Secty. and Anr.

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

Saleem Ahmed Ab. Rauf and Anr. Vs Malegaon Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Girimala Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Girimala Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maruti Ukandi Ingole Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Society for Pn of Equality Awareness and Rights Vs the National Sports Clubl Fo India and 8 Ors.

Vinaykumar Vishnu Awate Vs Union of India through Joint Secretary of Law and Justice and Ors.

Harakchand Manikchand Khabia Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hemant Bapuraopatil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mrs. Uma W/O Anil Nimje and 5 Others Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust, through Its Chairman and Another

Prabhakar Panjabrao Lohkare Vs Mah. State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. (M.S.E.T.C.L.) Thr. Its Chief Engineer and Anr.

Naresh S/O Keshavrao Dahare Vs the State of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department and 2 Others

Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board, through Its Chief Officer Vs Shri Maroti Ramaji Bobde, through P.O.A. Kamlesh Chandrashekhar Dadhe and 18 Others

Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board, through Its Chief Officer Vs Shri Narayan Baburao Bobde, through P.O.A. Shri Kalmesh Chandrashekhar Dadhe and 3 Other

Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board, through Its Chief Officer Vs Shri Maroti Ramaji Bobde, through P.O.A. Kamlesh Chandrashekhar Dadhe and 3 Others