Disposed

Shri. Prashant Pitambar Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Dec 2018WP/13569/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patil & Karnik JJ held that a petitioner raising public interest issues regarding alleged tender irregularities and revenue loss in sand excavation is not personally aggrieved but was directed to make a comprehensive representation to the Collector within two weeks. The writ petition was subsequently disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file a comprehensive representation to the Collector within two weeks; Writ Petition disposed of.

Shri. Prashant Pitambar Pawar Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp 13569-16.doc

¶2

DDR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13569 OF 2016

¶4

Prashant Pitambar Pawar .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents ….........

¶5

Mr. Vaibhav Ugle for the petitioner. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for State.

¶6

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, CJ. & M.S. KARNIK, J. DATE : 20^th DECEMBER, 2018

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

The petitioner alleges that the tender of contract of excavation of sand was allotted in favour of one "Shriram Glass" in the year 2016. It is the petitioner's allegation that the company concerned which was awarded the tender for excavation of sand, has excavated excess sand. The operation of excavation has damaged the roads thereby inconveniencing the public at large. The petitioners' allegation is that there was loss of revenue too. The petitioner submits that the representation has been addressed to the SubDivisional

¶9

1/3

¶10

wp 13569-16.doc

¶11

Officer, Pandharpur, in the year 2016. Similar such representation was also made to Tahsildar but the authorities have not attended to said representation.

¶12

This Petition was filed in the year 2016 by the petitioner who claims to be resident of At – Kharsoli, Post – Phuchincholi, Taluka – Pandharpur, District Solapur. He claims to be a person interested in development of the village.

¶13

In the first place, we find that the petitioner raises issues in public interest by filing a Writ Petition. He is not personally aggrieved. At the same time, we find that he made some representations to the authorities concerned in respect of the alleged violation of conditions of tender and loss of the revenue to the State.

¶14

In this view of the matter, we observe that the petitioner is at liberty to make a comprehensive representation to the Collector, Solapur, in respect of the subject issue within two weeks from today.

¶15

2/3

¶16

wp 13569-16.doc

¶17

In case, the Collector receives such representation

¶18

the same shall be looked into. In case a Grievance Cell is constituted to consider such representation, the complaint shall be forwarded to the Grievance Cell.

¶19

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶20

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) ( CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶21

3/3

Shri. Prashant Pitambar Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Prashant Pitambar Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and 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

Mr. Kachru Bhivaji Sonawane Thru Poah Sanjay Kacharu Sonawane Vs State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Public Works Dept. and Ors.

Subhash Namdev Salunkhe Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Subhash Namdev Salunkhe Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Prashant Pitambar Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Mahesh Mukund Chaudhari Vs Ministry of Enviroment and Forsests and Ors.

Rohidas Chandar Dhamale and Anr. Vs the City and Industril Development Corpo Mah. and Ors.