Dismissed

Rajesh Sosa v. State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Sept 2016PIL/74/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged a work order issued to construct a foot over bridge without considering public suggestions. The court held no public interest was involved, the tender process was duly followed, and the project served the public interest, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed holding there is no public interest involved, the procedure established under law was followed, and the construction is in public interest.

Rajesh Sosa Vs State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

1/2

PILL 149 of 2015

Vat

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

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) No. 149 OF 2015

¶6

Rajesh Sosa ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

¶8

None for the Petitioner

¶9

Mr. Amar Mishra -AGP for Respondent Nos.1,4 and 5 Ms. Yamuna Parekh for BMC

¶10

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE &

¶12

SMT. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ

¶13

DATE : SEPTEMBER 8, 2016

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

None appears on behalf of the Petitioner.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent

¶17

Nos.1,4 and 5 and the learned counsel for the BMC.

¶18

The Petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction, directing the Respondents to cancel the work order datd23.1.205 issued by Respondent No.7 in favour of the Respondent No.8. By the said work order, Respondent No.8 has been asked to construct foot over bridge. It is not in dispute that the tender notice was issued on 18.7.2014 and pursuant to the said notice in all seven tenders

¶19

2/2

¶20

PILL 149 of 2015

¶21

were received by the MCGM. Thereafter, the work order was issued in favour of Respondent No.8 on various conditions enumerated in the work order. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the work order was issued without considering the suggestions and complaints from the public at large.

¶22

In our view, firstly, there is no public interest involved in this PIL. Secondly, no grievance is made regarding tender process which has has been duly followed by the Respondent No7 before issuing work order in favour of Respondent No.8 . Thirdly, the construction of the foot over bridge is in the interest of public at large. Fourthly, the Petitioner has made bald averments in the PIL that the construction has commenced without any survey and/or opinion.

¶23

The Deputy Superintendent of Gardens (Z-VII) has filed an affidavit in reply. We are of the view that there is no public interest involved in this PIL. Respondent No.7 has issued a work order in favour of Respondent No.8 after following the procedure established under the law. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this PIL. Hence, PIL is dismissed.

¶24

SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J. V.M. KANADE, J.

¶25

Vaishali Tikam

Rajesh Sosa v. State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Sosa v. State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

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

Mohan S/O Marotrao Karemore Vs Union of India, through Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department and 4 Others

Nagari Hakka Saurakshan Manch, Thr. Central President Shri Janardan Moon, Nagpur Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Tourism and Cultural Department, Mumbai and Others

Rahatad Mahadeo Koli Jamat Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Phaltan Shriram Vividh Karyakari Sah.Seva Soc.Ltd. Vs the Member Secretary of Taluka Sub Committee andORS.

Subhash Prabhakar Patil Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Water Resources Dept

Jamil Shafi Ansari Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Shri Rajendra Prasad Chaube, Municipal Councillor, Ward No. 3, Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Kulgaon Badlapur Vikas Samiti through Its President, Shri. Devendra Vishwas Kale Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Biddle Sawyer Ltd. Vs Chemical Employees Union and Anr.

Rajratna J. Jamnik Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Slum Rehabilitation Authority Vs State Bank of India

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of Ors. Vs Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.

Sheth Developers Privatelimited, Vs Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited and Anr.

M/S. Divya Enterprises (Borrower) Vs L and T Finance Limited