Allowed

Balaji Sand Suppliers through Its Proprietor Satish Dnyandev Waghole v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC29 Mar 2017WP/3081/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with a writ petition for issuance of authorization to excavate sand after the petitioner deposited the auction amount. The court rejected an intervention application from a second bidder who offered a lower deposit, noting that the petitioner had already fulfilled the financial requirements, and subsequently disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Authorization to excavate sand to be issued; intervention application rejected; writ petition disposed.

Balaji Sand Suppliers through Its Proprietor… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

{1}

¶2

wp 3081.17.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3081 OF 2017

¶5

Balaji Sand Suppliers through: Proprietor Satish S/o Dhyandev Waghole Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents

¶8

Mr. M.A. Shaikh advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.B. Joshi, AGP for Respondent No.1 to 4

¶9

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &

¶10

K.L. WADANE, JJ (Date : 30^th March, 2017.)

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

1 This Court, by order dated 22.3.2017 recorded the statement of the petitioner that, he would deposit remaining amount of auction within two days. It is also recorded that 1/4^th

¶13

amount has already been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioners has offered an amount of Rs.41,95,915/- in respect of sand block.

¶14

2 Since the petitioner has deposited entire amount under the directions issued by this Court, there shall be no impediment for the respondents to issue authorization in favour of the petitioner

¶15

wp 3081.17.odt

¶16

{2}

¶17

to excavate the sand.

¶18

3 An application is presented by one K.K. Mobile, seeking intervention in the matter. It is the contention of the applicant that he participated in the tender process which was initiated after cancellation of the earlier process, where-under, the petitioner was found to be successful bidder. It is also contended that the applicant is successful bidder in the said auction process. In view of pendency of the petition, he has not been permitted to deposit any amount.

¶19

4 It does appear that the amount offered by the intervenor is about 50% of the amount offered by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner has deposited whole of the amount and if the contention of the intervenor is to be accepted, the State would be put to financial loss. In this view of the matter, the intervention application tendered by the intervenor need not be entertained and same stands ejected.

¶20

5 Since the grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant petition is redressed, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

(K.L. WADANE, J) (R.M. BORDE, J)

¶22

vbd

Balaji Sand Suppliers through Its Proprietor Satish Dnyandev Waghole v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji Sand Suppliers through Its Proprietor Satish Dnyandev Waghole v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Ashok Champalal Bhutada and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Syed Moinoddin Khutuboddin and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Poonam Sandeep Ghongade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amol Iresh Annamwar Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad through Its Member Secretary and Others

Savita Jyotiram Kore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prerna Samsher Warpudkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others