In a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a portion of tendered infrastructure work, the court found no malafides and no adverse findings against the petitioners, declining to interfere with the order.
No order as to costs.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1154 OF 2011
(M/s. Saidutta Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's orders
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. JULY 04, 2011.
Heard Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sonare, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 5 and Shri Jagtap, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4.
The grievance of the petitioners is, part of the work nearer to dam and later part at the end of canal is being permitted to go on while work in between these two portions for which the petitioners had tendered, has been cancelled.
Shri Parchure, learned counsel states that only reason given is non-availability of funds. According to him, the entire valuation of that work which could have been allotted to five petitioners is about Rs.90 crores and the petitioners are ready and willing to work even if the funds are released later i.e. after the same become available to Respondent No. 2.
Shri Jagtap, learned counsel points out that the entire tender itself has been cancelled, hence the
2
grievance that only portion of work in between two ongoing portions has been cancelled, is incorrect. He further states that though in some cases orders were issued, still respondent No. 2 has cancelled the same and notices for cancellation, in accordance with the contract, have been issued.
In this situation, as we are not noticing any malafides and as there is no adverse finding against any of the petitioners, we are not inclined to interfere in the petition. With liberty to the petitioners to raise the grievance again, if occasion therefor arises, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
*GS.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the cancellation of part of the tendered work due to non-availability of funds warrants interference in the interest of justice.
M/s. Saidutta Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
P.D. KODE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
