Dismissed

Dr. Umesh Kulkarni, v. State of Maharshtra, through Its Secretary, Revenue and Forests Dept. Mumbai and Antoher

Bombay HC23 Sept 2014WP/482/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging appointment criteria alleging non-accrual of accreditation. Court dismissed petition because the work order was already granted to a third party and that party was not joined as a respondent, preventing an adverse order behind their back.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Dr. Umesh Kulkarni, Vs State of Maharshtra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp482-14

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 482 OF 2014

¶5

Dr. Umesh Kulkarni

¶6

vrs.

¶7

State of Mah. Through its Secretary,Revenue and Forests Department and another.

¶8

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶10

Court's or Judge's orders

¶11

¶12

Shri N.A. Padhye, counsel for petitioner. Ms. Preeti Rane, AGP for respondents.

¶13

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND P.R. BORA, JJ. DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER , 2014 .

¶14

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the advertisements dated 21.11.2013 and 4.12.2013, so far as they provide that an applicant desirous of appointment on the post of Environment Consultant should possess the accreditation from NABET. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent no. 2 to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Environment Consultant though he does not possess the accredition certificate from NABET. Certain other reliefs are also sought by the petitioner.

¶15

It is stated by the learned Additional Govt. Pleader, on the basis of the reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 that the lowest tender of Shri Sai Mana Nature Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad was accepted and the work order was also issued to the said company on 27.12.2013. Though this fact is brought to the notice of the petitioner on the basis of the affidavit-in-reply filed in March,

¶16

wp482-14

¶17

¶18

2014, the petitioner has not joined the said party as a respondent to this petition. The petition cannot be effectively decided in the absence of the joinder of the party in favour of which the work order is issued by the respondent no. 2 on 27.12.2013. Time was granted to the petitioner on the last date of hearing for considering whether the party from Hyderabad could be joined as a respondent but it is informed to this court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not interested in joining the party to which the tender is allotted and the work order is issued on 27.12.2013, as respondent to this petition.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner cannot be granted the contract as the contract is already granted to a third party in December, 2013 and that party has not been joined as a respondent in this petition. An adverse order cannot be passed behind the back of the party.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶21

Hirekhan

¶22

JUDGE JUDGE

Dr. Umesh Kulkarni, v. State of Maharshtra, through Its Secretary, Revenue and Forests Dept. Mumbai and Antoher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Umesh Kulkarni, v. State of Maharshtra, through Its Secretary, Revenue and Forests Dept. Mumbai and Antoher

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

Gopal S/O Balaji Zade Vs State of Mah., Animal Husbandry, Dairy and Fisheries Development Department,Thr. Principal Secretar

Vinayak S/O Pralhad Tikar and 2 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary Social Welfare Department, Mumbai and Anothers

Shah Vajeda Bano Bashir Shah Vs State of Mah., Thr. Ecretary, Department of Social Justice, Cultural Afairs and Special Assistance

Dr. Mrs. Vandana W/O Nandkishore Khedikar and Another Vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, through Its Registrar, Nagpur and Another

Arun Jagannath Gedam Vs State Bank of Hyderabad Thr. Its M.D. and Anr.

Rekha Shivramkji Lakhorkar Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary Public Health Department Mantralaya Mumbai