Dismissed

Vidhya Pratishthan Deep Nagar, Nanded v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Nov 2014WP/11913/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused to interfere in a writ petition challenging the grant of work due to the passage of time. Having heard arguments and noting the petition was filed months after the work allotment, the court declined jurisdiction and disposed of the petition with liberty.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition and Civil Application are disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take other steps open in law.

Vidhya Pratishthan Deep Nagar, Nanded Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

C.A. No. 11111 of 2014 & W.P. Stamp No. 12357 / 2014

¶2

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

¶3

Civil Application No. 11111 of 2014 (In Writ Petition Stamp No. 12357 / 2014) And Writ Petition No. of 2014

¶4

(Stamp No. 12357 / 2014)

¶5

Vidhaya Pratishthan Deep Nagar, Nanded, Krishna Niwas, Deep Nagar, Taluka & District : Nanded, Through its President, Venkatesh s/o. Maruti Nirmal Patil. .. Petitioner / Applicant.

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32, 3 others. .. Respondents.

¶8

Mr. R.V. Naiknavare, Advocate, for the petitioner - applicant.

¶9

Mr. G.R. Ingole, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶10

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 21ST NOVEMBER 2014

¶12

(2) C.A. No. 11111 of 2014 & W.P. Stamp No. 12357 / 2014

¶13

COURT'S ORDER :

¶14

The Writ Petition be registered and numbered.

¶15

Heard Adv. Mr. R.V. Naiknavare for the petitioner - applicant, and learned AGP Mr. G.R. Ingole for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶16

Considering the prayer in the Application, we have made attempts to find out controversy involved in the Writ Petition. In Writ Petition, challenge is to grant of work to respondent no.4. The contention is, tender has been allotted without its due publication.

¶17

It is not in dispute, that the work has been allotted in January 2014. The petition has been filed in May 2014, and as yet, this court has not issued even first notice to respondents. The application for amendment has been filed in September 2014.

¶18

In this situation, considering the passage of time, we are not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction. With liberty to the petitioner, to take such other steps as are open in law, we dispose of the Writ Petition. Consequently, the Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of. No costs.

¶19

( A.M. BADAR ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

puranik / CA11111.14etc

Vidhya Pratishthan Deep Nagar, Nanded v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidhya Pratishthan Deep Nagar, Nanded v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Nanded Municipal Council Nanded Thr.Commissioner Vs Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. Pune and Anr.

Deepalli Durgesh Donde Vs Durgesh Suresh Donde

Saba Bin Hasan Hantosh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sampatrao Ashroba Mule and Others Vs Union of India and Others

Bhausaheb Bhimrao Palve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunita Shankar Dahifale Vs Bhausaheb Bhimrao Palve and Others