Dismissed

Pundlik S/O Baliram Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Public Works Deparment, Mumbai and 4 Others

Bombay HC25 Feb 2015PIL/13/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejects a Public Interest Litigation alleging corruption in road construction between Malhivra and Malvagad. The court observed a four-year delay unexplained by the petitioner and noted that photographs proved the road existed, leading to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The PIL was rejected and the petition was dismissed.

Pundlik S/O Baliram Shinde Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

PIL13-14.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶4

P.I.L.No.13/2014

¶5

(Pundlik Baliram Shinde .vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. )

¶6

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

¶7

Mr. P.J.Mehta, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 5.

¶8

CORAM : B.R. Gavai & Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, JJ. DATED : February 25, 2015.

¶9

The petitioner has filed the present petition contending therein that there are huge scale of malpractices, irregularities and corruption insofar as the construction of road between Malhivra and Malvagad is concerned.

¶10

An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mr. Popat Punjaba Khandagale, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, wherein all the details regarding issuance of tender work, allotment of contract etc. is given. It is specifically stated that the contractor had started his work and the work was even inspected by the office of the Superintendent Engineer, Vigilance and Quality Control Circle, Amravati on 10.09.2009 and accordingly issued observation memo dated 06.10.2009. It is specifically stated that the work was completed in March, 2010 and period of almost four years is passed from the said date.

¶11

On the last date, we had directed the learned Government Pleader to place on record the photographs

¶12

¶13

PIL13-14.odt

¶14

since it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the road was not in existence. The learned Government Pleader has accordingly placed on record the photographs which show that the road is in existence.

¶15

It is further to be noted that the construction of the road is completed in March, 2010 whereas the petition is filed in the year 2014. No explanation as to why the petitioner has not approached this Court earlier has been given.

¶16

In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. P.I.L. is rejected.

¶17

JUDGE

¶18

JUDGE

¶19

halwai

Pundlik S/O Baliram Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Public Works Deparment, Mumbai and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pundlik S/O Baliram Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Public Works Deparment, Mumbai and 4 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

Uttam Manohar Kachre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manubhai Paragji Vashi Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vikas Madhukar Ambade Vs District Collector, Raigad and Ors.

Prakash Bhimrao Pingal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Giridhar Chaturvedi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anil Gajanan Bhagat Vs State of Maharashtra, through Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Mr. Swapnil a. Bagul and Anr. Vs M/S. Shishu Vikas Sanstha and Ors.

Rahim Ahmed Khan MD Masood Ahmed Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Smt. Chhaya Shyamnath Kumbhare Vs State of Maharashtra, Rural Development through Its Secretary, Mumbai and 2 Others

Shri Wasudeo S/O Narayanrao Pise Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Thr. Its Divisional Controller Buldhana

Arvindkumar S/O Bahadursing Chouhan Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Swarnish S/O Ramchandra Ghodeswar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Finance Dept. Mumbai and 5 Others

Punya Coal Roadlines through Its Proprietor Shri Yugpradhan S/O Pannalal Mehta Vs Western Coal Fields Limited, Coal Estate, Nagpur and Antoher

M/S Punya Coal Roadlines through Its Prop. Mr. Yugpradhan S/O P. Mehta and Others Vs M/S Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur through Its Managing Director-Cum-Chairman and Another