Writ petition challenging invitation of a tender despite a subsisting work order. The Court accepted the State's assurance of following due process before termination and disposed of the petition without appreciating the challenge.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ash
wp-6627.14
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6627 OF 2014
M/s. Sachin Security & Intelligence Bureau. .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra and Others. .. Respondents --
Shri Suresh M. Sabrad for the Petitioner. Shri V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondents.
CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.K.MENON, JJ DATED : 11TH FEBRUARY 2015
P.C.
. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and
the learned AGP for the Respondents. The challenge in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the tender invited by the State Government. The contention raised in this Petition is that the tender has been invited for a period for which the Petitioner has a subsisting contract/work order. The contention is that for the period for which the Petitioner has a subsisting contract, the tender cannot be invited.
ash
2
wp-6627.14
“1. I state that work order issued to the Petitioner dated 18/02/2014 (Exhibit-G) is operative and if the Respondents desire to cancel or terminate the said order, due process of law will be followed. I further state that if the Respondents desire to terminate or cancel the work order issued in favour of the Petitioner, 15 days advance notice thereof shall be issued to the Petitioner.”
(A.K.MENON, J)
M/s. Sachin Security & Intelligence Bureau
The State of Maharashtra
A.S. OKA
A.K. MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
