Dismissed

Shri. Ashok Pandurang Mayekar v. the Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Apr 2014WP/87/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a writ petition filed by the President of Ratnagiri Municipal Council challenging the grant of No Objection Certificate for works executed by the Public Works Department instead of the Municipal Council, the Court found no prejudice to the Petitioner and dismissed the petition under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected.

Shri. Ashok Pandurang Mayekar Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP87.2014

¶2

krs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.87 OF 2014

¶6

Shri Ashok Pandurang Mayekar : Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The Secretary, Urban Development Department & Ors.

¶9

: Respondents

¶10

Mr.M.A. Choudhari for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr.V.S.Gokhale, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Responent nos.1 to 4, 6 & 7.

¶12

Mr.Niranjan Prabhakar Shimpi for Respondent no.5.

¶13

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

¶14

DATE : APRIL 08, 2014. P.C.:

¶15

The Petitioner is the President of Ratnagiri Municipal Council. There is a Government Resolution issued by the State Government on 03.12.2013 which provides for issuing special grants to the Municipal Councils for providing basic amenities in the limits of the Municipal Council. The total amount of special grant has been mentioned in the Government Resolution. The said Government Resolution provides that a Committee shall be constituted under the Chairmanship of the District

1 of 6

WP87.2014

krs

Collector for granting approval to the works to be carried out by utilising the special grant of the State Government. The Superintending Engineer of the Public Works Department, the Chief Officer of the concerned Municipal Council and the District Project Officer are members of the Committee. Sub-clause (c) of clause 3 of the Government Resolution provides that works listed in the Schedule to the said Government Resolution should be carried out by the agency named in the schedule against the respective works. It also provides that for ensuring completion of the works on schedule, the Committee headed by the District Collector will have a power to change the agency mentioned in the schedule. Sub-clause (e) of clause 2 provides that if the Committee decides to get the work carried out through an agency other than the Municipal Council, No Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) of the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council will have to be obtained.

¶20

The main grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is as regards the manner in which the N.O.C. has been granted by the Chief Officer. He urged that the meeting of the Committee headed by the Collector was held on 16.12.2013 in which it was decided that necessary work will be carried out through the Public Works Department as it is not possible for the Municipal Council to carry out work within

2 of 6

WP87.2014

krs

deadline fixed. He urged that even before the said decision was taken, on 06.12.2013, the Chief Officer hurriedly granted No Objection on the basis of which the work was commenced by the Public Works Department of the State. He invited our attention to a statement of one staff members of the Municipal Council. He urged that the whole exercise was done as the tender was to be allotted to a relative of a Minister. He invited our attention to the N.O.C. issued by the Chief Officer. He submitted that the Chief Officer has given an undertaking to maintain the roads constructed by utilising the special grant. He urged that if the work carried out is defective, the Municipal Council will be burdened with the work of repairs and maintenance.

¶25

We have carefully considered the submission. As regards the grant

¶26

of tender to the relative of the Minister, there is no challenge in the Petition. Therefore, the said contention will have to be kept out of consideration. A Committee was constituted under the Government Resolution dated 03.12.2013 which was conferred with the power to decide in what manner works will be carried out within the limits of the Municipal Council for utilising the special grants released by the State Government. The State Government Resolution constituted a Committee headed by the Collector of which the Chief Officer is a member. It

¶27

WP87.2014

¶28

krs

¶29

provides that if the Committee decides that work shall be carried out not by the Municipal Council but by any other agency, the same will have to be done on N.O.C. being granted by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council.

¶30

It will be necessary to refer to the minutes of the meeting held on 16.12.2013. The minutes of the meeting referred to the decision taken by the Committee. The minutes record that it may not be possible for the Municipal Council to carry out the work by utilising special grants within the stipulated time. It also records that necessary technical staff is not available with the Municipal Council and, therefore, it was resolved to carry out the works within the limits of the Municipal Council through the P.W.D.

¶31

Even in the letter of No Objection dated 06.12.2013, there is a reference to the minutes of the meeting held on 06.12.2013 under the Chairmanship of the Collector. In the minutes of the meeting dated 16^th December, 2013, the N.O.C. issued by the Chief Officer has been considered in paragraph 2(c). There was a decision taken in the said meeting to carry out the works by utilising special grants through the P.W.D.

¶32

WP87.2014

¶33

krs

¶34

Even assuming that there is some illegality on the part of the Chief Officer while granting the consent, in the petition, it is not pointed out in what manner the Municipal Council has been adversely affected. Now the entire work has admittedly been completed. The work was carried out by the Public Works Department (PWD) of the State Government by utilising special grants issued by the State Government. In this petition there is no grievance made regarding any defective work or inferior quality of work carried out by the P.W.D. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner as the President of the Municipal Council. There is no prejudice caused to the Municipal Council on account of the N.O.C. issued by the Chief Officer. On the contrary, it appears that on the basis of the N.O.C., 34 different works in relation to the roads in the city have already been carried out through the P.W.D. by utilising the special grants issued by the State Government.

¶35

Hence, we fail to understand what is the real grievance of the Petitioner who is the President of the Municipal Council. Surely, he cannot have any grievance that instead of the work being carried out through the Municipal Council, the same is being carried out through the P.W.D. of the State Government.

¶36

WP87.2014

¶37

krs

¶38

There is no reason to interfere in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the Petitioner who is the President of the Municipal Council. The petition is, accordingly, rejected.

¶39

6 of 6

Shri. Ashok Pandurang Mayekar v. the Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ashok Pandurang Mayekar v. the Secretary, Urban Development Dept 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

Element Learning Centre Private Limited and Ors. Vs the Collector, Satara and Ors.

Shri. Kumar Gorakhnath Shinde Vs Smt. Aparna Atul Salagare and Ors.

Mrutyunjay Ashram, through President, Mr. Jayant Gopal Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Shri Baburao Maruti Dalavi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shivaji Babaji Kamble and Ors. Vs the Deputy Director for Rehabilitation and Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Bhumiputra Shetkari Sevabhavi Sanstha and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.