Dismissed

Rajesh Motheba Mhaske v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC29 Oct 2018PIL/140/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Public Interest Litigation filed by a social worker challenging an e-tender notice was dismissed at the threshold. The court held the petition was filed based on erroneous assumptions and the petitioner lacked locus standi to raise grievances on behalf of Panchayats.

What did the court decide?

The public interest litigation was dismissed at the threshold as it was found to be devoid of merit and filed on erroneous assumptions.

Rajesh Motheba Mhaske Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

140.18pil

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.140 OF 2018

¶5

Rajesh s/o Motheba Mhaske, Age: 36 years, Occu: Agri. & Social Worker, R/o: Bellara, Post Janefal (Pandit), Tq. Jafrabad, Dist. Jalna

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32

¶9

The Principal Secretary, Village Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32

¶10

The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32

¶11

The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶12

The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Circle, Aurangabad

¶13

The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Jalna ..RESPONDENTS

¶14

Mr S. T. Veer, Advocate for petitioner; Mrs A. V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondents

¶15

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND

¶16

SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

¶17

DATE : 29th October, 2018

140.18pil

(2)

ORAL ORDER:

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶22

This petition is styled as public interest litigation. The petitioner claims to be a social worker and is espousing the cause of public. The grievance raised in the petition is about the e-tender notice issued by respondent No.6. The said notice is placed on record at Exh.'F'. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that there is Government Resolution dated 27^th September, 2018, the copy of which is placed on record at Exh.'E'. He then invited our attention to the list of works, which is a part of Exh.'A'. Exh.'A' is the Government Resolution dated 31^st March, 2018. This Resolution deals with allotment of the amount for providing basic amenities or providing certain infrastructural facilities at village level. This Resolution states that under this scheme, the State Government is providing a large some amount and insofar as Jalna district is concerned, the list of such works is annexed to the Resolution.

¶23

Perusal of the said Resolution shows that these are the various works of constructions, such as, construction of community hall, construction of internal roads, construction of shade or cover to the last rituals place, etc. Then there are also certain works of providing paver blocks including beautification and construction of wall around school building. These are as many as 247 works in entire Jalna district. The approximate cost for all these works is 1375.00 Lakhs.

¶24

140.18pil

¶25

(3)

¶26

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently submitted that the e-tender notice issued and placed on record collectively for all these works is in violation of the Government Resolution dated 27^th September, 2018. Perusal of the Resolution dated 27^th September, 2018 shows that it is the aim and object of extending the limit for the works to be alloted to the labour co-operative societies. Further it shows that earlier limit was of Rs.50,000/- and the State Government was under consideration of extending this limit to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. Then by referring to the certain modalities and nature of work, the State Government is extending the limit with further prescription of the conditions. Now, placing a heavy reliance on the Government Resolution dated 27^th September, 2018, the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is the e-tender notice issued is flouting the conditions of said Resolution.

¶27

On perusal of aforesaid Resolution, we are unable to accept the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner. The aim and the object of this Resolution is to extend the limit for the works to be provided to the labour co-operative societies. If the State Government has framed a policy to allot the funds for providing better facilities and amenities at village level and to achieve that object, the State Government has specified the works, estimated provisions of the expenditure to these works is also referrred to and if the State Government in its wisdom thinks it fit to float the tender

¶28

(4)

¶29

140.18pil

¶30

giving a comprehensive works order and if this e-tender notice nowhere contravening the object of the Government Resolution dated 27^th September, 2018, merely on assumption and presumption of a private party, the challenge raised to the tender notice, in our opinion, is clearly unsustainable. Furthermore, if the panchayats are aggrieved of such allotment of works, then they could have approached this Court raising this grievance. Nothing is placed on record to submit that the petitioner is one of any such panchayats members or occupying any position in any panchayat of Jalna district.

¶31

Considering all aforesaid aspects, we are of the clear opinion that present public interest litigation is filed on an erroneous assumption and presumption. Thus, the litigation being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

(SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶33

sjk

Rajesh Motheba Mhaske v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Motheba Mhaske 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkatrao Malharrao Kakade Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shahid Aslam Gulam Ahmed Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Omprakash Motilal Varma Vs the Union of India and Others

R R Pandiyan Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Paresh Rajesh Badnore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dilip Baban Kate Vs the Union of India, the Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Valmik Pandharinath Wakchaure and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vinod Subhash Thorat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, the Addl. Chief Secretary and Ors.

Hari Pirajirao Boyale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra Gramin Bank Aurangabad through Its Chairman and Others Vs Nagorao Kamaji Bamne

The Commissioner of Income Tax Aurangabad Vs Jai Jawan Jai Kisan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Latur

Nalge Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Partur through Its Director Umesh Bhaurao Nalge Vs Superintending Engineer and Another

M/S Emco Ltd. Vs Union of India through Joint Secretary and Others

Mirza Rauf Baig Mirza Shabbir Baig Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others