Disposed

Mr. Gopal Ishwarlal Jhaveri v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Dec 2016PIL/83/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed a PIL concerning alleged delays and mutual termination of a metro project. It held prayers for specific directions were too vague. The petitioner was directed to seek information under the RTI Act to establish bonafides or malafides before agitating grievances in this manner. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

petition disposed; prayers held too vague; petitioner advised to use RTI Act.

Mr. Gopal Ishwarlal Jhaveri Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

skn 1/2 83.16-pil.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 83 OF 2016

¶4

Mr.Gopal Ishwarlal Jhaveri. V/s.	...	Petitioner.
State of Maharashtra and others.	...	Respondents.

¶5

Ms.G.Geetha i/b. H.Kumar Vaidyanathan for the petitioner. M.M.Pabale, AGP for the State.

¶6

CORAM : DR.MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. AND M.S.SONAK, J.

¶7

DATE : 2^nd December 2016.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

The petition before us is seeking the following reliefs:

¶10

“a) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of continuous Mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, Order or Direction, directing.

¶11

b) The Respondents to take such measures so as to secure strict compliance and also to appoint an investigating Authority as to why the said project was mutually terminated without any liability and/or penalty to any or both the parties to the concession Agreement.

¶12

c) Pass such other and further orders as this

¶13

skn 2/2 83.16-pil.sxw

¶14

Hon'ble Court may deem proper and expedient in the Public interest.

¶15

d) For expeditious hearing of this petition.

¶16

No doubt, as one of the citizen of this country he may feel that delay in completion of Metro Projects is nothing but to deprive all people of the benefits of the Metro Project. The petitioner has also referred to the termination of project mutually without any liability or penalty. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there is loss caused to the public exchequer. The prayers made are too vague and there cannot be any specific direction unless the petitioner places on record the malafides or arbitrariness in any of the actions taken either by the State or the instrumentality of the State. If the project is terminated mutually, we do not find any grievance as such. If there is delay in the project being completed, then in that case, by seeking information about the same under the Right to Information Act the petitioner can first satisfy himself whether there are any bonafides or not.

¶17

In the light of the above observations, at this stage, we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot agitate his grievances in this manner. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶18

(M.S.SONAK, J.)

¶19

CHIEF JUSTICE

Mr. Gopal Ishwarlal Jhaveri v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Gopal Ishwarlal Jhaveri v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and 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

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, and Ors.

Ashok Madavdas Parwani Vs Ulhasnagar Mun Icipal Corporation and Ors.

Manohar Kashinath Patil and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Rural Development and Water Resources and Ors.

Ashokkumar Krishnarao Sawant and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Manoj Suresh Pingle through Nirbhay Foundation Vs the State of Maharashtra, the Secretary

Smt. Sujata Shamrao Desai and Anr. Vs the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sushant Subhash More Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Social Justice and Welfare Dept and Ors.

Sushant Subhash More Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Social Justice and Welfare Dept and Ors.

Titus Anthony Govaria and Anr. Vs Monica Padamanabhan Nair and 13 Ors.

Kanyalal Rewachand Mirani Vs M/S. Trans-Fabpower India Pvt. Ltd.

Kanyalal Rewachand Mirani Vs M/S. Trans-Fabpower India Pvt. Ltd.

Shrikant Ganpati Mane and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Suresh B Ahuja Vs Ashok Hadumal Chandwani and Ors.

Dr. Harshwardhan Madhusudan Modak and Anr. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.