Dismissed

Abdul Malik Haji Mohammed Yunus v. the Malegaon Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Aug 2015PIL/119/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a PIL challenging a tenders resolution and notice for waste collection. It held that as the petitioner is an elected Councillor who did not oppose the resolution then, he failed to exhaust remedies and no case is made out for the PIL.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of as no case is made out for entertaining the PIL.

1A resolution was passed by the General Body of Malegaon Municipal Corporation on 20th September 2012 for inviting tenders for appointment of contractors for door to door collection of waste material in municipal corporation area. E-tenders were invited on the basis of the said resolution dated 20th September 2012.

2The first challenge in this PIL is to the said resolution dated 20th September 2012. The second challenge is to the tender notice. It is not in dispute that the petitioner himself is an elected Councillor of Malegaon Municipal Corporation for the period from 2012 to 2017. Thus, when the impugned resolution dated 20th September 2012 was passed, the petitioner was a party to the said resolution. It

is not the case made out by the petitioner in the petition that he opposed the said resolution when it was placed before the General Body of the Municipal Corporation. On the basis of the said resolution, in March 2013, notice of E-tenders was published by the Municipal Corporation. Though the petitioner was aware of the resolution dated 20th September 2012, he filed the present petition 16th April 2013.

3The petitioner being an elected Councillor the petitioner had an opportunity to oppose the resolution which was passed on 20th September 2012. The petitioner could have always moved the State Government under section 451 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act,1949.

4The challenge on merits is that the tender notice was for appointing only one contractor for doing the work in three zones, Zone 1, 2 and 4. His submission is that if one contractor is allowed to work in three zones, it will not be possible for him to carry out the works in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1740 of 2013 and other connected matters on 2nd April 2013.

5Only because three zones are clubbed together, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the contractor appointed for doing the work in three zones may not able to act efficiently. Now that tender process is over long back. In the event, the appointed contractor commits any default, the

petitioner being an elected Councillor of the Municipal Corporation can always raise the issue before the General Body and seek an action against the contractor. Therefore, no case is made out for entertaining the PIL at the instance of the petitioner.

Abdul Malik Haji Mohammed Yunus v. the Malegaon Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Malik Haji Mohammed Yunus v. the Malegaon Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagesh Madavi S/O Ashok Madavi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vidarbha Asso. for Res. Tech. and Dev. in Agri. and Rural Sec. Thr. Its Pre. Dr. Balwant G. Bathkal Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Others

Gaurang Dinesh Damani Vs Union of India and 33 Ors.

Janata Rahivasi Mandal Chunabhatti and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Padmakar Janardan Kamble and Anr. Vs Shri. Balwant Moreshwar Purandare and Ors.

Vasant Ganesh Apte Vs Prakash Naiknavare and Ors.

Shri. Hunoorsidha Khelpa Shejale Vs Shri. Vishal Baburao Takmoge and Ors.

Vasant Ganesh Apte Vs Prakash Naiknavare and Ors.

Devi Construction Company and Ors. Vs Maharahstra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Ors.

Shri Ramchandra Maruti Gundal (Since Deceased) through LRs. Govind Ramchandra Gundal and Anr. Vs Shri Vikas Deshmukh Collector of Pune and Ors.

Sou. Arusha Sampat Dawkhar Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary to Govt. and Ors.

Metro Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Mah. and Ors.

Kajupada Shri Gajanan Kripa Co-Op Hsg.Soc.Ltd. Vs Mun.Corpn of Gr.Bombay and Ors.

Shri N.B.Vaidya and Ors. Vs Mun.Corpn. of Gr. Bombay