Dismissed

Rajendra Madanlal Pipada v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Oct 2013WP/7349/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the award of a tender for constructing shopping complexes, the petitioner contested the notification and alleged illegal construction on the wrong site. The court rejected the grievance, finding the parties admitted the site mix-up was a correctionable mistake.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; deposit allowed to be withdrawn with accrued interest.

Rajendra Madanlal Pipada Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

{1}

¶2

7349.10wp.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7349 of 2010

¶4

Rajendra Madanlal Pipada

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr. Amol V. Sawant, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.R. Palnitkar, AGP for respondent No.1 and 2. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate h/f. Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶10

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATE : 23rd OCTOBER, 2013.

¶11

PER COURT:

¶12

1] Petitioner, a citizen of India, challenges the award of tender to respondent No.4 by respondent No.3 Municipal Council. Submission is, tender notice dated 14.6.2010, was in relation to site carrying reservation No.2 and for construction of a Shopping Complex.

¶13

2] As per the said advertisement dated 14.6.2010, work was already given to respondent No.4. Site No.2, in fact, is for administrative building of respondent No.3 municipal council. ON

¶14

{2}

¶15

7349.10wp.odt

¶16

20.7.2010, another advertisement was issued and it mentioned very same work on Site No.1. Contention is, before issuance of said advertisement, work was already commenced by respondent No.4 and hence, there is serious illegality. Grievance is, though various representations have been made to Collector and Collector directed holding an enquiry, nothing has been done thereafter.

¶17

3] Shri Hon, appearing for respondent no.3, learned AGP appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.4 oppose the petition. They rely upon respective reply affidavits.

¶18

4] We find it admitted position that Site No.2 is for administrative building of Municipal Council while Site No.1 is for the commercial complex. municipal Council has on affidavit stated that no development has been done on Reservation Site No.2. Their contention is, in advertisement dated 14.6.2013, inadvertently, in place of Site No.1, Site No.2 came to be mentioned and this has been corrected in later advertisement dated 20th July, 2010.

¶19

5] It is not the case of the petitioner that no tenders were received in response to tender notice dated 20th July, 2010 published on 21st July, 2010. It is not his case that tender lower than respondent No.4 was submitted by anybody to Municipal Council. Respondent No.4 appears to have submitted tender only in pursuance to earlier advertisement dated 14.6.2010. he has, thereafter carried out work on site No.1 only and not on Site No.2.

¶20

6] In this situation, we do not find any substance in the

¶21

7349.10wp.odt

¶22

grievance being made. Petition is therefore rejected. The amount in deposit is allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner with interest accrued upon it.

¶23

[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE] [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI] JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

grt/

Rajendra Madanlal Pipada v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Madanlal Pipada 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

Jain Social Federations Anandrishiji Hospital and Medical Research Center Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amita Devidasrao Chate Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Umesh Devidas Khaladkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sayyed Ajij Abbas Vs the Divisional Controller Msrtc Ahmedngar and Ors.

Shivani Estate Brokers and Developers Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bharati Shikshan Sanstha Pimprala through President and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.