Dismissed

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

Bombay HC6 Sept 2016PIL/81/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL under Article 226 sought directions for implementing a government resolution regarding tenders for special repairs and an inquiry into alleged embezzlement. The High Court held there was gross delay and no public interest, disposing of the petition while reserving the petitioner's right to make a representation to the Corporation.

What did the court decide?

PIL disposed without addressing specific relief claims; right to approach the Corporation via representation reserved.

Rajratna J. Jamnik Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

PILL. 47-14

¶2

VPH

¶3

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

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) No. 47 OF 2014

¶5

Rajratna J. Jamnik … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

¶7

None for the Petitioner.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Smt. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 6, 2016

¶10

PC.

¶11

None appears on behalf of the Petitioner. By this PIL, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, Petitioner is seeking following reliefs:

¶12

(a) That, the writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ be issued and thereby the Respondent No. 4 be ordered to implement the GR dated 1/11/2008 (bearing no. 1608 / case No. 47 / 08 / 11-A) against the concerning officers involved in the matter of issuing tenders / work orders towards

¶13

1 / 3

¶14

PILL. 47-14

¶15

special repairs to M/s. R. J. Buildcon. Pvt. Ltd. during the years 2009-2010; more particularly the work orders issued on 5/2/2010 & 6/2/2010;

¶16

(b) That, writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ be issued and thereby the probe through the state investigation agency be ordered to investigate the embezzlement of funds involved in the matter of issuing tenders / work orders towards special repairs to M/s. R. J. Buildcon. Pvt. Ltd. during the years 2009-2010; more particularly the word orders issued on 5/2/2010 & 6/2/2010;

¶17

(c) Pending the final hearing of the present petition the Respondent No. 5 be called for to submit the detail report based on the inquiry proceedings stated to have been instituted vide the letter dated 27/8/2013 addressed by the Respondent No. 6 to Respondent No. 5;

¶18

(d) Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) above;

¶19

(e) Any such and other further relief be passed as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the nature and circumstances of the case.”

¶20

The Petitioner is seeking directions regarding the tenders

¶21

which were issued in the year 2009-2010. The PIL is filed in the year

¶22

2 / 3

¶23

PILL. 47-14

¶24

2014, almost after lapse of 4 to 5 years. In our view, there is gross delay in filing this PIL. Apart from that, we are of the view that there is no public interest involved in this PIL. Reserving the right of the Petitioner to make representation to the Corporation, PIL is disposed of. Needless to say that if such a representation is made, the Corporation shall decided it on merits and in accordance with law.

¶25

Sd/Sd/[Smt. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶26

Vinayak Halemath

¶27

3 / 3

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Jagannath Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Imran Ibrahim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Mr. Pushkaraj Shekherrao Indurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Cabinet Secretary and Ors.

Shivaji Jagannath Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

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.

Mr. Nilesh Arjun Dolas Vs Mrs. Seema Nilesh Dolas

Anagha a. Tokotekar Vs Khandwala Finance Ltd. K.S.Shah

Tukaram Dattu Kamble Vs the Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Society and 7 Ors.

Mr. Sushant Subhash More Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Anr.

Shri. Dewanand Adappa Sasane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anandrao Ramchandra Jadhav Vs the Collector, Satara and Ors.