Allowed

The Vice Chancellor Marathwada University Aurangabad and Anr. v. Datta Gyanaba Bokde and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2016RA/153/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant University sought permission to revise plans for an abandoned Environmental Science building project. The Court held that after 15+ years and significant changes in intake capacity, prior orders directing a specific tender process were unenforceable and did not impede revision.

What did the court decide?

Order declared unenforceable due to lapse of time; applicant free to revise plans and conduct new tender.

The Vice Chancellor Marathwada University Aurangabad and Anr. Vs Datta Gyanaba Bokde and Ors. — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

RA 153/14 in WP 3675/89

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.153/2014

¶5

IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3675/1989

¶6

Vice-Chancellor,

¶7

Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University, Aurangabad & another.

¶8

...Applicants..

¶9

Versus

¶10

Datta Gyanaba Bokde & others.

¶11

...Respondents...

¶12

 .....

¶13

Shri R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/b Shri V.R. Dhorde,
Advocate for applicants.
Respondent no.1 served by publication in newspaper.

¶14

 .....

¶15

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.

¶16

DATE: 20.06.2016

¶17

ORDER :

¶18

1]This is an application by the Vice Chancellor and

¶19

the Registrar of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University, Aurangabad, seeking modification of the order

¶20

passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
No.3675/1989 on 23.3.1990 as well as in Writ Petition
No.3578/1991 decided on 2.12.1991.

¶21

2]The tender process initiated by the University in

¶22

RA 153/14 in WP 3675/89

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

respect of tender work of construction of building for
Environmental Science Department, was a matter of
challenge in Writ Petition No.3675/1989 at the instance
of one Datta Gyanaba Bokde. The principal objection of
the petitioner in the aforesaid petition was as regards
the observance of procedure for acceptance of tenders by

¶25

the University authorities. It was the contention of the
petitioner that the University did not consider the
sealed tenders received and has deviated from the

¶26

procedure, which was required to be followed for
allotment of the tender works. This Court, after hearing
the parties, allowed the writ petition and directed the
University to consider only the sealed tenders and select

¶27

any one amongst them and if none of them is found to be
suitable, then liberty was granted to the University to
call for fresh tenders by publishing a fresh notice.

¶28

3]The University, it appears, instead of observing the
order passed by the Court in its entirety, issued fresh
tender notice. The sealed tenders already received in
response to the earlier tender notice were not considered
and the University chose to adopt course of issuing fresh
tender notice. The said action of the University was a

¶29

RA 153/14 in WP 3675/89

¶30

- 3 -

¶31

matter of challenge in another writ petition being Writ
Petition No.3578/1991. The Division Bench dealing with
the matter quashed the action of the University and
issued further directions to issue fresh tender notice
and consequently the tender was allotted to the
respondent no.4. It does appear that after disposal of
second writ petition presented by the respondent no.1
herein – original writ petitioner on 2.12.1991, no
further steps were taken by the University. The tender
process was in fact abandoned and the tender work was not

¶32

undertaken. After lapse of almost 26 years, after the
decision in Writ Petition No.3578/1991, need is felt by
the University to construct a separate building for
Environmental Science Department. After passage of 25

¶33

years, initial plans of the proposed building prepared
have also become obsolete since the requirement of the
infrastructure for the department has increased manifold.

¶34

It is pointed out that in the year 1991, the
infrastructure was tried to be raised considering the
intake capacity of the students for M.Sc. course as 9
students, which has been increased to 32 students each
year. The intake capacity of the Ph.D. students has also

¶35

RA 153/14 in WP 3675/89

¶36

- 4 -

¶37

increased from 12 to 36. The building as proposed in the
year 1990 is not viable and is not sufficient to meet the
needs. It was, therefore, proposed by the University to
revise the building plans and construct a new building,
may be at a different location within the University
premises. The University authorities deemed it

¶38

appropriate before taking any final decision in the
matter to seek permission from this Court since the order
passed in earlier writ petitions is in force and the
process for the construction of the building undertaken
earlier was abandoned. Apprehending that any further
action may lead to violation of the orders of the High
Court, the applicants have moved this Court seeking
necessary permission.

¶39

4]In spite of service of notice by way of publication,
the respondent no.1 has not caused appearance in the
matter.

¶40

5]It is a matter of record that the University
authorities did not pursue the tender process at the
relevant time and the project prepared in the year 1990
for construction of the building for Environmental
Science Department was not implemented.

¶41

RA 153/14 in WP 3675/89

¶42

- 5 -

¶43

6]Considering the need of the University to augment

¶44

its infrastructure to suit the present need, revised
plans are required. Since the tender process initiated
in the year 1990 has been abandoned, the directions
issued by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.3675/1989 and
3578/1991 decided on 2.12.1991 are unenforceable after
lapse of more than 15 years.

¶45

7]In the facts of this case, the reasonable request
made by the University deserves to be accepted. It would

¶46

be open for the University to revise the plans for
construction of the Environmental Science Department
building and raise the infrastructure as per the
requirement of the University and the orders passed by
the Division Bench in the earlier writ petitions would
not be an impediment for adoption of such a course.

¶47

8]With the clarification as above, the review

¶48

application stands disposed of.

¶49

ndk/ c2061616.doc

The Vice Chancellor Marathwada University Aurangabad and Anr. v. Datta Gyanaba Bokde and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Vice Chancellor Marathwada University Aurangabad and Anr. v. Datta Gyanaba Bokde 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

Dilip Maruti Ghodke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Shweta Amit Chopada and Another

Maheshkumar Vishnu Gadekar Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Ajimoddin Pachulal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amol Umakant Sangave and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Utkarsha Rajesh Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others