Dismissed

Maharani Tararani Shetkari Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Ltd, through Manager, S. D. Telvekar v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Housing Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2014WP/2060/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of an application for land allotment due to non-submission of audited accounts. The court held that the applicant could have complied with the prescribed condition of eligibility and declined to exercise writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Maharani Tararani Shetkari Mahila Nagari… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

WP2060-11.12

1/3

PNP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2060 OF 2013

¶7

Maharani Tararani Shetkari Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Ltd.

¶8

versus State of Maharashtra and others

¶9

...Petitioner.

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Rahul Prakash Walvekar for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mrs. Neha Bhide for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶12

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

¶13

11^th December, 2014.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. On the basis of the advertisement dated 14^th July, 2009 published by the Pune Housing and Area Development Authority (the Third Respondent), the Petitioner made an application for allotment of a plot of land which was reserved for utility shop. According to the case of the Petitioner, the application made by it for allotment was not decided and therefore, representations were made. There is a reply filed by Shri Ashok Kakade, the Chief Officer of the Third Respondent. In the reply, a reliance is placed on the application submitted by the Petitioner for seeking allotment in prescribed form. Clause No.5 of the said form requires the Applicants (charitable and other

WP2060-11.12

2/3

PNP

institutions) to submit audited accounts for previous three years apart from the other documents. Though the application is signed by the office bearers of the Petitioner, admittedly the Petitioner did not produce the audited accounts for previous three years. Even according to the case of the Petitioner, the accounts were produced which were not audited. In the affidavit, another aspect is pointed out. It is stated that the Petitioner had applied for amenity plot admeasuring 321 sq. meters. It is pointed out that the Petitioner did not apply for area of 393 sq. meters which was the area of Survey No.42-B.

¶20

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that at the relevant time, there were notifications / Government Resolutions in force which provided that it was for the authorities under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to get the accounts of the co-operative societies audited and therefore, the Petitioner was under no obligation to get the accounts audited.

¶21

From perusal of the application form and in particular, clause No.5 thereof, it appears that there is a specific requirement of producing audited accounts of the previous three years. It is a condition of eligibility. The Petitioner did not challenge the said condition of eligibility and participated in the process. The Petitioner did not seek time to produce the audited accounts. Even assuming that the Government circulars provided that the accounts of the co-operative societies should be audited by the Government, as the eligibility condition

WP2060-11.12

3/3

PNP

required the Petitioner to submit the audited accounts, the Petitioner could have always got the accounts audited.

¶26

Therefore, this is not a fit case where writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be allowed to be invoked. Hence, we decline to entertain the Petition and the same is rejected.

¶27

(A.S. Gadkari, J.)

Maharani Tararani Shetkari Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Ltd, through Manager, S. D. Telvekar v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Housing Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Maharani Tararani Shetkari Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Ltd, through Manager, S. D. Telvekar v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Housing Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vitthal Corporation Limited, through Authorised Signatory, Shri. Prakash Shamrao Patil Vs the Commissioner of Sugar and Ors.

Vitthal Corporation Limited, through Authorised Signatory, Shri. Prakash Shamrao Patil Vs the Commissioner of Sugar and Ors.

Shri. Dagadu Nanu Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Agatrao Ghadge and Ors. Vs Deputy General Manager / Complaint Redressal Officer, Sangli Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Sangli and Ors.

Mr. Dwaranand Daman Dicholkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Jayesh Jivraj Gajora Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.