Dismissed

M/S Joy Constructions through Its Prop. Smt. Jolly Paul, through P.O.A. Mr. Vadakathala L. Paul v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., through Its Chief Engineer (P), Nagpur

Bombay HC23 Jan 2015WP/183/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a communication directing it to clarify authorization given by M/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd. The court dismissed the petition, noting that Bajaj Electricals is not a 'State' under Article 12 and no valid case for interference against the respondent was established.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was rejected.

M/S Joy Constructions through Its Prop. Smt. Jolly… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

23012015wpno.183.2015 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

W.P.No. 183 of 2015

¶4

M/s Joy Constructions vs. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited and another.

¶5

Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶6

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders.gistrar's orders.istrar's orders. Orders.

¶7

or directions and Registrar's orders.gistrar's orders.istrar's orders.

¶8

Mr. S.A.Mohta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.D.Mohgaonkar, Adv. for R-1. Mrs. B.A.Kale, Adv. for R-2.

¶9

CORAM: B.R.GAVAI &

¶10

MRS. MRIDULA R. BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 23.1.2015

¶11

The petitioner challenges the communication/ letter

¶12

dated 10.1.2015 vide which the petitioner has been directed to clarify the authorization given to it by the Bajaj Electricals Limited since it is an unequivocal confirmation regrading support and guarantee for material and works offered by M/s Joy Construction on behalf of M/s Bajaj Electricals is required for evaluating the petitioner’s techno-commercial bid.

¶13

It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent no. 2 though had earlier granted certificate in its favour, has directly addressed the communication to the respondent no.1 stating therein that the authorization issued in favour of the petitioner is

¶14

23012015wpno.183.2015 2

¶15

only related to the participation in the tender. It is the contention of the petitioner that after addressing the communication dated 29.12.201 stating therein that M/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Nagpur is a partner in the aforesaid tender work and he shall be given technical support with guarantee of materials. It was not permissible for M/s Bajaj Electrical Ltd. to address another communication dated 10.1.2015.

¶16

Undisputedly, M/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd. is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus the writ would not lie against the said respondent.

¶17

Apart from that it is contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 that no authorization from the High Mast Department was given in favour of the petitioner. Perusal of the letter dated 29.12.2014 itself would reveal that the authorization is guaranteeing for materials is by an officer of luminary div.. In that view of the matter, we do not find that any case is made out for interference. Hence, the petition is rejected.

¶18

JUDGE JUDGE

¶19

patle

¶20

23012015wpno.183.2015 3

M/S Joy Constructions through Its Prop. Smt. Jolly Paul, through P.O.A. Mr. Vadakathala L. Paul v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., through Its Chief Engineer (P), Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Joy Constructions through Its Prop. Smt. Jolly Paul, through P.O.A. Mr. Vadakathala L. Paul v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., through Its Chief Engineer (P), Nagpur

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 Ganesh Paddhe and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Chief Secretary, Gen. Admin. Dept. and 2 Others

Bhagwansingh Baburao Ingle (Rajput) Vs Honble Minister, Food Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Dept. and 4 Others

Ganesh S/O Ramkrishna Dandekar and Another Vs Sudhir S/O Sriram Bijwe and Others

M/S Leben Laboratories Private Ltd., Akola through Its Managing Director, Shri Bharat Nitilal Shah Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Wardha and 2 Others

Chandrakant S/O Gayaprasad Shahu and Anr. Vs Smt. Premlata D/O Ramlal Shahu and Anr.

Gulabrao S/O Balkrishna Kadam Vs Sate of Mah., Thr. Its Secretary Ministry of Housing Development Ans Special Assistance Dept.