Dismissed

Manoj Kantilal Naya v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and 8 Others

Bombay HC25 Feb 2015WP/1531/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order blacklisting the petitioner as a licensed plumber. The Court held that the blacklisting was legitimate as adequate reasons were recorded and the petitioner had been given a show-cause notice and a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Manoj Kantilal Naya Vs Brihanmumbai… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

17.WP1531_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1531 OF 2014

Manoj Kantilal Nayak

… Petitioner

vs.

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sandesh Patil i/b. Mr. Anil Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 8.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & C.V. BHADANG, JJ. DATE : 25^th February, 2015.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

By this Petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the Corporation dated 13^th December, 2013 blacklisting the petitioner as a licensed plumber.

¶13

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Hydraulic Engineer has recorded cogent reasons for rejecting the defence of the petitioner that the petitioner was not responsible for tendering the bogus receipts as a licensed plumber. It is not a case where the petitioner was not granted an opportunity before he was blacklisted. The respondent-Corporation had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and also heard the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. The case of the

¶14

1 of 2

¶15

17.WP1531_2014.doc

¶16

petitioner that the petitioner was not responsible for the tendering of the bogus receipts and Mr. Mahesh Pawar, the Junior Engineer was instrumental in tendering the same, was not accepted by the Corporation. It is observed in the impugned order that the acts of Mahesh Pawar and other Municipal staff are also investigated by the Competent Authority and suitable action would be taken against the erring persons after they are found guilty. Since the impugned order is passed by recording the finding of facts on the basis of the reply and the explanation tendered by the petitioner, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

¶17

In the result, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶18

(C.V. BHADANG, J.) (VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

¶19

2 of 2

Manoj Kantilal Naya v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kantilal Naya v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and 8 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

Prof. Yashwant Bhagwan Bhide Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rekha Ramratan Tripati Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nalin Choksey Vs State of Maharastra and 4 Anr.

Partha Jayesh Vidhani Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Shri. Prasad Gopinath Thorat Vs Shri. Nivritti Fakira Bhandure and Ors.

Shri. Satish Yeshwant Chavan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.