Dismissed

Narayan S/O Laxmanrao Thokalwar v. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Village Maddikunta and Another

Bombay HC22 Apr 2015WP/5356/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging the allotment of fishing rights to a private individual via auction was dismissed. The Court held that with most of the contract term expired and the petitioner lacking standing as the Society sought it, there was no ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Narayan S/O Laxmanrao Thokalwar Vs Sarpanch… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 22.04.wp.5356.14..

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5356/2014 ( Narayan s/o Laxmanrao Thokalwar vs. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Village Maddikunta & another )

¶4

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

¶5

Mr. S I Jagirdar, Advocate for petitioner Mr. H.A.Deshpande, Advocate for Respondents 1 and 2

¶6

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A.M. BADAR, JJ. DATED : 22^nd April, 2015.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the allotment of the fishing rights in the Tank at village Maddikunta, in favour of the respondent no.3, in pursuance of the auction conducted on 20.8.2014.

¶9

According to the petitioner, who claims to be the President of a society To which the contract of fishing was granted for the year 2013-14, has challenged the allotment of the fishing rights in favour of the respondent no.3, in pursuance of the auction, dated 20.08.2014. It is the case of the petitioner that initially the fishing rights of the Tank in question were given to the Society, of which the petitioner is a President, however though it is necessary to grant the contract to fishing Societies, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have granted the fishing contract in favour of a private

¶10

2 22.04.wp.5356.14..

¶11

person, by holding an auction. It is stated in paragraph no.10 of the Petition that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to participate in the auction conducted on 20.8.2014. It is stated that the Tank has been allotted to the respondent no.3 in breach of the policy in the Government Resolutions, issued in 2001 and 2002.

¶12

It is stated on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is stated that the Petition is not filed by the Society to which the contract was granted earlier. It is stated that the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition in his personal capacity and the same is not filed by the Society, of which the petitioner is a President. Also, it is stated that the son of the petitioner had participated in the auction conducted on 20.8.2014. It is stated that only as per the policy of the Government, the auction was conducted and the same cannot be challenged. Also, it is stated that the contract was granted in favour of the Society, of which the petitioner is the President, for a paltry sum of Rs.11,000/- in the previous year whereas, in view of the action, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were able be fetch a sum of Rs. 47,800/- towards lease money. It is lastly stated that the allotment made in favour of the respondent no.3 would expire by the end of May, 2015.

¶13

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted and the contract executed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in favour of respondent no.3 cannot be cancelled. Most of the term of the contract has expired and only one month

¶14

3 22.04.wp.5356.14..

¶15

of the term remains. Moreover, the Petition is not filed by a Society, though it is the case of the petitioner that the contract could have been granted only in favour of the Societies and not private persons. Also, it is surprising that the son of the petitioner had participated in the said auction and when the contract was not allotted in favour of the son of the petitioner and was allotted to the respondent no.3, the Petition is filed. In the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in this Writ Petition, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, especially when the contract is about to expire within one month.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid the Writ Petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶17

JUDGEJUDGE

¶18

sahare

Narayan S/O Laxmanrao Thokalwar v. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Village Maddikunta and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan S/O Laxmanrao Thokalwar v. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Village Maddikunta and Another

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

The Bhandara Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.through Cheif Executive Officer, Shri H.C. Madan and Anothe Vs the State of Maharshtra, through Tis Secretary, Dept. of Cooperation and Textile Mumbai and 3 Other

Komalsingh S/O Kondusingh Parihar Vs the Managing Director, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Mumbai and 1

Sou. Sunita Sunil Gujar (Ku. Sunita Vitthalrao Pakhale) Vs Shri R.S. Walvi, (Joint Commissioner / Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee)

Deepak H. Sakhare (the Then Assistant (Personnel)) Mineral Exploration Corpn. Ltd., Nagpur Vs the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi and Others

Ratnapal S/O Bhaskar Satdeve and Others Vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department,Mumbai and Other

Praful S/O Narayanrao Mahajan Vs the Government of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and Others