Disposed

Dalichand G Shah v. the Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC5 Jan 2016WP/156/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In three connected writ petitions, the Court accepted the Municipality's request to withdraw impugned Show Cause Notices due to a recording error regarding a non-existent blacklisting order. The petitions were dismissed without deciding merits, keeping the matter open for appropriate future proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Accepted the statement of the Municipal Corporation; impugned Show Cause Notices withdrawn; petitions disposed of.

Dalichand G Shah Vs the Municipal… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 WPL 3565.2015, WPL.3567.15,

¶2

WPL.3593.15(P.305,306,&307)

¶3

mnm

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3565 OF 2015

¶6

Dalichand G. Shah ...Petitioner Vs.

¶7

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr. Annirudha Joshi a/w. Mr. Viraj Maniar and Mr. Nakul Jain i/b. Maniar Srivastava Associates for the Petitioner Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Sr. Counsel a/w. Mr. Vinod Mahadik for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶9

ALONG WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3567 OF 2015

¶11

Omkar Engineers & Contractors & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondens

¶12

Mr. Milind Sathe, Sr Counsel a/w. Mr. Anirudh Joshi, Mr. Virag Maniar, Mr. Nakul Jain & Mr. Harsh Behary i/b. Maniar Srivastava Associates for the Petitioners Mr. Vinod Mahadik for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. Vaibhav Borkar, A & E Ward (Monitor & Registration) is present

¶13

ALONG WITH

¶14

WRIT PETITION (L)NO. 3593 OF 2015

¶15

RE Infra Private Limited ...Petitioner Vs.

¶16

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents

¶17

Mr. Dhakephalkar Sr. Counsel a/w. Mr. Dharam Jumani, Mr. Suraj Iyer i/b. M/s. Ganesh & Co., for the Petitioner

¶18

2 WPL 3565.2015, WPL.3567.15,

¶19

WPL.3593.15(P.305,306,&307)

¶20

Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Sr. Counsel a/w. Mr. Vinod Mahadik for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3

¶21

CORAM : A.S.OKA, & C.V. BHADANG, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 05, 2016

¶22

P.C.:

¶23

Not on board. Taken on board.

¶24

Learned Senior Counsel representing the Mumbai Municipal Corporation has produced for perusal of the Court the original order dated 3^rd December, 2015 passed by the Municipal Commissioner. Clause 2 of the said order directs that the process of blacklisting of the contractors be started immediately. There is also a direction to file FIR. There is a direction to complete departmental inquiry within a period of three months.

¶25

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation states that, therefore, the recording made in the impugned notices that there is an order of black-listing passed by the Municipal Commissioner against the petitioners is incorrect.

¶26

From the original order dated 3^rd December, 2015 we find that the Municipal Commissioner has not passed any order of blacklisting against the petitioners and that he has merely directed the commencement of process of black-listing.

¶27

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal

¶28

3 WPL 3565.2015, WPL.3567.15,

¶29

WPL.3593.15(P.305,306,&307)

¶30

Corporation makes a following statement in these three petitions on instructions:

¶31

“ As it is wrongly recorded that the Municipal Commissioner has passed the order of blacklisting the contractors, MCGM may be permitted to withdraw the impugned Show Cause Notice dt. 10.12.2015 issued by the Executive Engineer (I/c) (Monitoring Registration) with liberty to issue fresh Show Cause Notice and to take further steps in the matter in accordance with law ” .

¶32

We accept the aforesaid statement. As the impugned notices are withdrawn, the petitions do not survive. Accordingly by accepting the aforesaid statements recorded in paragraphs 2 and 4 above we dispose of the petitions. The disposal of the petitions will not prevent the Municipal Corporation from initiating appropriate proceeding according to law for blacklisting of the petitioners and for cancellation and / or suspension of the registration of the petitioners.

¶33

All the contentions on merits are kept open.

¶34

(C.V. BHADANG,J.)

Dalichand G Shah v. the Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalichand G Shah v. the Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and 2 Ors.

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

Vishnu Babaji Rane Vs Municipal Commissioner and Anr.

Babu Kalappa Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

Shaikh Mohd Shabbir Vs the State of Maharashtra and 14 Other

Richard D'Souza and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

M/S Shashanti Consultant and Investment Co.Pt.Ltd. Vs the Mun.Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai

Cosmos Homes India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corporatio of Greater Bumbai and 11 Ors.