Disposed

Sahebrao Gajmal Patil v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2014PIL/76/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a contractor alleging non-payment of dues and misappropriation by officers, approached via PIL after converting a writ petition. The court held that cognizance as PIL cannot be taken in writ jurisdiction when disputed questions arise from a contract, allowing the petitioner to approach the competent forum.

What did the court decide?

PIL disposed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent forum to resolve the disputed questions.

Sahebrao Gajmal Patil Vs the State of Mah and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

G.A.Ghule

¶2

pil 76.13 (Sr.No.31).sxw

¶3

[P.A.]

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 76 OF 2013.

¶6

SAHEBRAO GAJMAL PATIL

¶7

Versus THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS.

¶8

Appearance =>

¶9

Mr. Dhananjay Thoke, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. G.R. Ingole, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the State of Maharashtra.

¶11

Mr. M.M. Bhokrikar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶12

CORAM : B.P. Dharmadhikari & A.M. Badar, JJ. DATE : 8^th December, 2014.

¶13

Per Court :-

¶14

Heard for some time. The petitioner is a Contractor, who claims to have completed certain work on oral instructions of Deputy Engineer and Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation Ltd., Jalgaon [In short, TIDC.] because of function then scheduled on 20^th September, 2006. He claims payment for that work. Grievance is that, he made correspondence and further enquiry, in which, he found that payment for said work was made to two Labour Co.Op.Societies though the said work was done by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Officers have misappropriate government funds; as that work was never entrusted to any Labour Co.Op.Society.

¶15

2/2 pil 76.13 (Sr.No.31).sxw

¶16

[2] Reply filed by respondent No.3 show that preliminary enquiry was conducted and in that it was found that said work was got done through two Labour Co.Op.Societies. It is also stated that some part of work which was covered under the contract with the petitioner, was done by him.

¶17

[3] Prayer in the Petition is to hold enquiry against concerned Executive Engineer in the matter.

¶18

[4] Several disputed questions arises. Initially, in the year 2013 present Petition has been filed as Writ Petition, and thereafter same has been converted as P.I.L. because of the court's order dated 24^th June, 2013 passed in W.P.No.10335/12 with W.P. No.462/13. However, this court on that date has only allowed the petitioner to take necessary steps.

¶19

[5] In this situation, as grievance arises out of the contract in which the petitioner has got interest and as it is apparent that several disputed questions arise, therefore, cognizance as Public Interest Litigation are in writ jurisdiction cannot be taken.

¶20

[6] With liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the competent forum, where disputed questions can be more conveniently looked into and keeping all rival contentions open, we dispose of Public Interest Litigation.

¶21

(A.M. BADAR, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Sahebrao Gajmal Patil v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahebrao Gajmal Patil v. the State of Mah 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

Murlidhar Bhivsan Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri. Kailas Nivrutti Khadke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Kailas Nivrutti Khadke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shahajirao Dhondiba Thorat Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vitthal Mahapurao Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Bhaskar Kale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dharavi Baitt Bachao Samiti and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Babulal K. Shah Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Mangilal Bhukchand Jain Vs the Municipal Council, Bhusawal and Another

Shankar Kachru Kedare Vs Punjabai Shankar Kedare and Another

Jaikaur Poonamsing Dongarjal and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

M/S Vinayak and Co. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Neelvastu Holiday Resorts and Properties Aurangabad Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Santosh Ramlal Thole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others