Dismissed

Citizens Grievences Redressal Foundation v. the State of Maharashtra Throuth Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Sept 2016PIL/85/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judges Kanade and Joshi dismissed a PIL challenging the award of a Mumbai-Pune expressway contract. The court held that no public interest was involved as allegations were made without placing material on record, thus refusing to entertain it as a PIL.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of as a PIL without being entertained, rejecting the prayer to investigate the contract award.

Citizens Grievences Redressal Foundation Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

PILL. 119-15

¶2

VPH

¶3

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

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) No. 119 OF 2015

¶5

Citizens Grievances Redressal Foundation … Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶6

¶7

None for the Petitioners.

¶8

Ms. Rebecca Gonsalves, AGP for the Respondent No. 1.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2016

¶11

PC.

¶12

None appears on behalf of the Petitioners. Even in the

¶13

morning session when the matter was called out, neither Petitioners

¶14

nor their counsel were present. By this petition, which is filed as PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners are seeking following reliefs:

¶15

“(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and / or direction in the nature of mandamus, thereby

¶16

1 / 3

¶17

PILL. 119-15

¶18

directing revocation and / or setting aside of the award of the subject contract granted to the Respondent No. 2 by the Respondent No. 1 in respect of the work of Toll Collection, operation and maintenance of Mumbai Pune expressway and Mumbai Pune section of NH-4 for the period beyond 10^th August, 2019 along with execution of additional works on Mumbai-Pune section of NH-4 as being perverse, illegal, unsustainable in law and induced by corrupt and collusive means.

¶19

(b) for such writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble Court, thereby directing an enquiry though an appropriate agency such as the Central Bureau of Investigation or such similar agency to investigate into the matter and prosecute the erring officials of the Respondent no. 1 who had colluded with the Respondent No. 2 to firstly conceive such ridiculous tenders and absurd and unsubstantiated prices and thereafter grant the same before the general election is announced and in the process cause serious loss to the state exchequer.

¶20

(c) pending the hearing of the writ petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondents from in any manner implementing or giving effect to the award of the contract granted in favour of Respondent No. 2 in respect of the work of Toll

¶21

2 / 3

¶22

PILL. 119-15

¶23

Collection, operation and maintenance of Mumbai Pune Expressway and Mumbai Pune section of NH-4 for the period beyond 10^th August, 2010 along with execution of additional works on Mumbai Pune section of NH-4;

¶24

(d) for costs of this petition and such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court, may deem fit in the circumstances of the case aforesaid.”

¶25

In our view, there is no public interest involved in this petition / PIL; and secondly, the contract has been entered into between Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 in respect of operation and maintenance of Mumbai Pune expressway. The allegations made in the PIL appears to have been made without placing any material on record. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this petition as a PIL. PIL is, therefore, disposed of.

¶26

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

¶27

Vinayak Halemath

¶28

3 / 3

Citizens Grievences Redressal Foundation v. the State of Maharashtra Throuth Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Citizens Grievences Redressal Foundation v. the State of Maharashtra Throuth Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation and Anr.

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

Dinar Yashwant Sohoni Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Mr. Prakash Hanumant Tare Vs Mr. Anil D. Datar and Ors.

Vikrant Chandrahas Tawde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil Damodar Thakare and Ors. Vs the Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Shri Kaustubha Dattatraya Gokhale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Nagrik Chetna Manch through Its Secretary Ms. Qaneez-E-Fatemah Sukhrani Vs the Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Save Mangroves and Navi Mumbai Existence (Samne), through President Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Vishwas Laxman Aher and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Irrigation Dept and Ors.

Dinar Yashwant Sohoni Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Maheshbhai Hiralal Champneria Vs M/S Kotak Securities Limited

Mr. Prakash Hanumant Tare Vs Mr. Anil D. Datar and Ors.

Dattatray Narhar Rajopadhye Vs M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors.

Mr. Adhiraj Dhairyashil Mane Vs Union of India, the Chief Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development and Ors.

Ankur Prabhakar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.