Dismissed

Shrikrishna Vishnu Shete and Another v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Sports, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC8 Oct 2014PIL/45/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, petitioners challenged the selection of a contractor for sports equipment supplies without following tender procedures. The Court found the petitioners' initial claim baseless, noting that advertisements were issued and tenders called, and dismissed the petition for lack of clean hands.

What did the court decide?

Public Interest Litigation dismissed with no order as to costs.

Shrikrishna Vishnu Shete and Another Vs State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

Order

0810pil45.2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 45/2014.

¶6

Shrikrishna Vishnu Shete and another

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Maharashtra and others.

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's Orders.

¶10

Court's or Judge's orders.

¶11

None for the Petitioner.

¶12

Shri S.M. Ukey, Addl. G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri H. Dhumale, Advocate for the Respondent No.4.

¶13

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK & P.R. BORA, JJ.

¶14

DATED : OCTOBER 08, 2014.

¶15

By this petition, the petitioners seek a

¶16

direction to the respondent no.1 – State of Maharashtra, Department of Sports to follow the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 22.01.2014 and to set aside the selection of the respondent no.4 – M/s. Sumeet Sports Pvt. Ltd, Pune for supplying of sports equipments for the State of

Order

0810pil45.2014

Maharashtra.

A statement was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on 10.09.2014, that without giving an advertisement and calling tenders for supply of sports equipments, the State of Maharashtra has granted the tender infavour of the respondent no.4 for the last several years.

¶22

Before the previous date of hearing, the respondent no.4 had filed an affidavit in reply. It is specifically denied by the respondent no.4 that the State of Maharashtra had not called for the tenders by issuance of an advertisement for supply of sports equipments. Several documents have been annexed to the affidavit in reply to show that the State had issued the advertisements from time to time and tenders were called from interested parties. Since we did not find any merit in the case of the petitioners on a perusal of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.4, and we were inclined to dismiss the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought a weeks time to file a rejoinder, if necessary. Though we were not

Order

0810pil45.2014

inclined to grant time as the facts involved in the case were disputed by the respondents, we granted time by way of a last chance.

¶27

Today a pursis is filed by the petitioners

¶28

and the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating therein that the petitioners have received all the papers from the Counsel. As we find that there is no substance in the petition and the statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the previous date of hearing i.e. 10.09.2014 was false and baseless, we intend to dismiss the Public Interest Litigation.

¶29

Shri Ukey, the learned Additional Government Pleader states that the State Government had issued advertisements from time to time and had called for applications from persons desirous of supplying sports equipments to the State. It is submitted that the statement made on behalf of the petitioners that the contract was granted in favour of the respondent no.4 for past several years without following due procedure and without issuing the advertisements is, incorrect.

Order

0810pil45.2014

The respondent no.4 has annexed several documents to the affidavit which clearly show that the State Government had issued the advertisements from time to time for inviting applications/tenders. The petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. The entire case of the petitioners is based on falsehood. Either the petitioners are knowingly making a false statement or the petitioners have not made due and proper enquiry before filing of the petition. In any case, we find that the basis for challenging the grant of contract in favour of the respondent no.4 is that the advertisement was not issued and the tenders were not called from interested parties. We however, find that the advertisements were issued and the tenders were called from interested parties for supply of sports equipments to the State. It also appears that the tenders were not only awarded to the respondent no.4, but, were also awarded to certain other persons who are not joined as parties to this petition.

¶34

Since the petitioners have not approached

Order

0810pil45.2014

this Court with clean hands, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with

¶39

no order as to costs.

¶40

JUDGE JUDGE Rgd

Shrikrishna Vishnu Shete and Another v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Sports, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikrishna Vishnu Shete and Another v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Sports, Mumbai and Others

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

Shri. Kishor Suryakant Mahadar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Vaibhavshali Mahila Bahuudeshiy Samajik Sanstha, Solapur, through Secretary, Mrs. a. S. Sonavane Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Women and Child Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Kishor Suryakant Mahadar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Vaibhavshali Mahila Bahuudeshiy Samajik Sanstha, Solapur, through Secretary, Mrs. a. S. Sonavane Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Women and Child Development Dept and Ors.

Dilip Ramchandra Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Mr. Kiran Anandrao Pawar and Anr. Vs Chief General Manager M/S. Irb Kolhapur Integrated Rd. Development Com. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Ketan K. Tirodkar Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

Mr. Kiran Anandrao Pawar and Anr. Vs Chief General Manager M/S. Irb Kolhapur Integrated Rd. Development Com. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Ashok S/O Anandrao Dhapodkar Vs the Commissioner for Fisheries and Registrar of Cooperative Socieite, Pune and 3 Others

Dr. Surya Nath Prasad, S/O Govardhan Ram Vs Nagpur University, through Its Ragistrar Nagpur and Others

Shri Pundlik Laxman Pendam and 2 Others Vs Additional Tribal Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and 3 Others

Ravindra S/O Sitaramji Gadge Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and 4 Others

Tarachand S/O Bisan Sakure, through P.O.A. Shri Pramod S/O Prabhakar Bhandarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Housing and Special Assistance Department, Mumbai

Ksl and Industries Limited, Thr. Its President Sorabh Tayal Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secty. and Others