Petitioner challenged tender award to Respondent No.3 and sought directions to award contract to him. Court held prayer (A) satisfied by debarment affidavit but refused prayer (B) as it violates Article 226 principles.
Prayer (B) for direction to award contract dismissed; Prayer (A) deemed worked out.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Megha 4_wp_3081_2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3081 OF 2017
Mamanchand s/o SH Chattersain Jain …Petitioner
Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Chetan Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP for the Respondent -State. Mr. M.M. Vashi, Senior Advocate with Ms Aparna Devkar I/b. M/s. M.P. Vashi and Associates for the Respondent No.3.
Megha Digitally signedby Megha Shridhar Shridhar Parab Date: 2018.07.20 Parab 14:19:07 +0530
CORAM : RANJIT MORE AND SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
DATED: 18th JULY, 2018.
P.C.:-
The Petitioner by this petition has challenged the order of
award of tender in favour of the Respondent No.3. He is also seeking directions to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to award the tender in his favour.
Megha
Megha 4_wp_3081_2017.doc
(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)
Megha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a direction to award a tender contract to the petitioner can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Whether prayer clause (A) challenging the award of tender to Respondent No.3 is maintainable given their debarment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mamanchand s/o SH Chattersain Jain
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.3
Ranjit More
Anuja Prabhudesai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
