Partly allowed

Prashant S/O Narayanrao Kimmatkar v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Tourisum, Mumbai and 2 Others

Bombay HC3 Aug 2016PIL/85/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the public authorities to advertise a resort lease for eight weeks and offer it to the highest bidder, subject to the existing lessee's right of first refusal, dismissing the procedural irregularity in the prior contract renewal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to advertise the resort within eight weeks and offer it to the highest bidder, subject to respondent no.4's right to match the offer.

Prashant S/O Narayanrao Kimmatkar Vs State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1/3

¶2

0308pil85.14

¶3

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

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 85 0F 2014

¶5

(Prashant s/o Narayanrao Kimmatkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others)

¶6

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

¶7

Shri R. Vyas, Advocate for petitioner.

¶8

Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos.1, 5 and 6.

¶9

Shri S.G. Jagtap, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶10

Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate with Shri Kothari, Advocate for respondent no.4.

¶11

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

¶12

DATED : AUGUST 3, 2016

¶13

Heard for some time.

¶14

In view of specific Clause dealing with duration of contract contained in agreement dated 12/10/1992, there could not have been negotiation only with respondent no.4. Opportunity should have been given to all aspirants and then respondent no.4 could have been given chance to match the highest offer. That was not done and respondent nos.2 and 3 have continued to negotiate only with respondent no.4 and given extensions on the pretext that initial advertised tenure offered was of 30 years.

¶15

After that initial advertisement,

¶16

0308pil85.14

¶17

2/3

¶18

difficulties faced by respondent nos. 2 and 3 forced them to cut down tenure to five years and accordingly respondent no.4 has accepted that tenure. As such, initial stipulation of 30 years has been rendered irrelevant. Last renewal has been granted in 2008 and period was upto 5/11/2013. Thereafter no further steps have been taken.

¶19

The respondent nos.2 and 3 have also demonstrated that Forest Department is claiming land as belonging to itself. This issue is hardly relevant in the present matter. When Government property is offered on lease by respondent nos.2 and 3 and contract has been entered into with them, they were duty-bound and are duty-bound to see that Government/respondent nos.2 and 3 get best possible returns therefor.

¶20

In this situation, we direct respondent nos.2 and 3 to proceed to advertise the resort within a period of eight weeks from today and to offer it to highest bidder on best possible terms subject to right of respondent no.4 to match that offer and to claim the resort. With these directions, we dispose of public interest litigation. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE

khj

0308pil85.14

3/3

CERTIFICATE

I certify that this order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed order.

¶27

Uploaded by : Uploaded on : Kamal H. Jeswani 04/08/2016 Private Secretary

Prashant S/O Narayanrao Kimmatkar v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Tourisum, Mumbai and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant S/O Narayanrao Kimmatkar v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Tourisum, Mumbai and 2 Others

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

Sk. Bashir Sk. Khudbuddin and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Help Association(Ngo) and Anr. Vs Government of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Tushar Guru Salien Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Suraj Datta Kedari Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Secretary and Ors.

Aapli Mansa Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Jayashree Ramakant Khadilkar-Pande and Anr. Vs Union of India through the Secretary Dept. of Agriculture and 36 Ors.

Mr. Sayyed Yusuf Afroz Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sachin Punjaram Borde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Premdas S/O Hariram Lale Vs Zilla Parishad, Bhandara Throuhg Its Chief Executive Officer and Another

Chandrakant S/O. Gajanan Wani and Another Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Maha. State Office and Others

Ramesh S/O. Ramaji Botare Vs Shri Rajiv Ghatole Divisional Contoller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur

State Bank of India through Its Deputy General Manager (Business and Operation) Vs the Honble Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies,Gov. of India Ministry of Agriculture and Ano

Dr. Parijat Vinod Kanetkar and Others Vs Mrs. Malika Parijat Kanetkar Nee Ms. Malika Vasant Purohit and Another

Sau. Arti W/O Vijay Goenka and Others Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation through the Area Manager, Akola and Others