Dismissed

Shriram Gorakh Munde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC2 Apr 2018WP/378/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a tender notice issued by the Municipal Council alleging non-sanction and alleged encroachment. The High Court observed that the Collector had granted sanction and measurement was subsequently completed. Holding further adjudication unnecessary as conditions were met, the court rejected the petition and dismissed the prayer to quash the tender.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash the tender notice was rejected, and the petitioner was denied any relief. Respondents were directed to proceed with the fresh tender.

Shriram Gorakh Munde Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

378.18WP

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.378 OF 2018

¶5

Shriram Gorakh Munde,
Age: 33 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o. Juna Mondha, Chinchwan Road,
Wadwani, Tq. Wadwani,
Dist. Beed. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra.

¶8

2. The Collector, Beed.

¶9

3. Chief Officer, Wadwani Nagar Panchayat, Wadwani, Dist.Beed.

¶10

4. Premdas Sitaram Rathod, Age 31 yrs., Occu: Agril., R/o.Wadwani, Dist. Beed. RESPONDENTS

¶11

...

¶12

Mr.Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen, Advocate for the
petitioner

¶13

Mr.S.B.Yawalkar,Addl.G.P. for the respondent/State
Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent no.3.
Mr.D.J.Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent no.4.

¶14

...

¶15

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND

¶16

 S.M.GAVHANE, JJ.
 DATE : 02.04.2018

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

1]This Writ Petition under Article 226 of

¶19

the Constitution of India is filed with the
following prayer:

¶20

378.18WP

¶21

¶22

B)By issuing appropriate Writ or order or
direction in the like nature, tender dt.
14/12/2017 issued by Wadvani Nagar
Panchayat at Exhibit-K may kindly be
quashed and set aside.

¶23

2]We have heard the learned counsel

¶24

appearing for the respective parties.

¶25

3]Pursuant to the notices issued to the
respondents, respondent no.2 has filed affidavit-
in-reply. It is stated in the said affidavit-in-
replythat,respondentno.2hasgiven

¶26

administrative sanction to the construction of the
shopping complex on the land of the Municipal
Council i.e. respondent no.3, by its order dated
24th November, 2017. The copy of such sanction
letter has been placed on record with the
affidavit-in-reply.

¶27

4]Respondent no.3 has also filed affidavit-
in-reply. It is stated in the said affidavit-in-

¶28

reply that, it is a matter of record that, the
office of the Deputy Superintendent of Land
Record, Wadwani, has conducted measurement, and

¶29

378.18WP

¶30

¶31

fixed the boundaries in respect of the land in
possession of respondent no. 3 - Municipal
Council. It is not in dispute that, on the said
land the shopping complex is going to be
constructed. It is not in dispute that, the
measurement of the said land has been carried out
subsequent to filing of this Petition. It is not
in dispute that, earlier tender was cancelled, and
thereafter, fresh tender has been floated.

¶32

5] Upon perusal of the pleadings and the grounds taken in the Petition, principally the exception was taken to the said tender notice on two grounds; firstly, there was no administrative sanction by the Collector, and secondly, at the relevant time there was alleged encroachment, and

¶33

the measurement of the said land where the
shopping complex was proposed to be constructed,

¶34

was not carried out. As already observed,

¶35

respondent no.2 i.e. the Collector, Beed, has

¶36

granted administrative sanction, and the

¶37

measurement of the said land has also been carried

¶38

378.18WP

¶39

¶40

out, and thereafter, fresh tender has been issued,
in our considered opinion, further adjudication of
this Petition is not necessary. Since compliance

¶41

of both the aforesaid conditions have been made,
respondent no.3 can proceed further to take
necessary steps pursuant to the fresh tender.

¶42

6]In that view of the matter, we are unable

¶43

to persuade ourselves to grant any relief to the
petitioner, hence the Petition stands rejected.

¶44

7]Needless to observe that, respondent no.3
will adhere to the conditions stipulated in the
administrative sanction / letter dated 24th
November, 2017 by respondent no.2.

¶45

8]Parties to act upon authenticated copy of
this order.

¶46

 [S.M.GAVHANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶47

DDC

Shriram Gorakh Munde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram Gorakh Munde 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

Uttam Baliram Ambatwad and Another Vs Nandkumar and Others

Shivaji Madhavrao Lakade and Another Vs Nandkumar and Others

Ravindra Shrinivas Deshmukh Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Gulabchand Pannalal Nahar Vs Wadawani Nagar Panchayat through Its Chief Officer Beed and Others

The Peoples Education Society Mumbai and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Wamanrao Gangaram Jagtap and Others