Disposed

Sangamner Loni Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through Its Managing Director Mohammad Israil v. the Governor of Maharashra through Its Executive Engineer and Others

Bombay HC1 Nov 2018WP/5234/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking compensation for a BOT project, the Court permitted an amendment to add the Chief Engineer as a respondent. It disposed of the petition by directing the added respondent to decide the claim within four months and the primary respondent to decide any new representation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed by directing the Chief Engineer to decide the claim within four months and the Executive Engineer to decide a new representation within eight weeks.

Sangamner Loni Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

925 WRIT PETITION NO. 5234 OF 2017

¶3

SANGAMNER LONI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD THROUGH ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR MOHAMMAD ISRAIL

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

THE GOVERNOR OF MAHARASHRA THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER AND OTHERS

¶6

...

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Anand Deshpande h/f Mr.
Bhadgaonkar Umesh A.

¶8

AGP for Respondents 2 and 3 : Mr. S.Y.Mahajan

¶9

…..

¶10

CORAM: PRASANNA B. VARALE
 AND

¶11

SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

¶12

DATE : NOVEMBER 1, 2018

¶13

O R D E R :

¶14

At the out set, learned counsel Shri Deshpande
seeks to amend the petition. Learned counsel submits

¶15

that in the title clause of the petition, respondent
no.3 is one of the respondents, namely the Executive
Engineer, Public Works Division, Sangamner, District

¶16

Ahmednagar, but as the petitioner has submitted
representation to the Chief Engineer, Public Works

¶17

2 wp5234.17

¶18

Department, Government of Maharashtra, Nashik and the
petitioner is requesting this Court for issuing
directions to the State authority to decide the
representation, the petitioner be permitted to add
the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Nashik
as party respondent to the petition. The prayer,
being formal and not causing any prejudice to the
respondents, is allowed, Consequential amendment be
carried out forthwith.

¶19

2.Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel

¶20

appearing along with Mr. Bhadgaonkar, learned counsel
for the petitioner and learned AGP for the
respondents including the added respondent.

¶21

3.Learned counsel fairly submitted before us
that though the petitioner by way of prayer clause
'B' prayed for directions to the respondent
authorities to pay compensation amount as claimed

¶22

towards taking over of BOT Project namely

¶23

“Improvement to Sangamner-Loni-Kolhar Road, on BOT
basis S.H. 44 KM No. 89/330 to 118/600 and S.JH. 45
KM No. 41/200 to 48/700 (36 KM)”, the petitioner has
already submitted his claim to the competent
authority, such as the Chief Engineer, Public Words
Department, Government of Maharashtra by way of
representation, dated 19.2.2016.

¶24

4.Our attention was drawn to the copy of the

¶25

said representation placed on record as Annexure 'G'.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if
directions are issued to the competent authority,

¶26

before whom the representation is submitted, to
decide the same, within a stipulated period, the

¶27

purpose of approaching this Court would be served.

¶28

5.Learned counsel submitted that in identical
situation, the Division Bench of this Court, by
order, dated 22.3.2017 disposed of the petition, with
direction to the authority to decide the claim of

¶29

4 wp5234.17

¶30

petitioner within stipulated period.

¶31

6.Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel then invited

¶32

our attention to a statement made in the affidavit-
in-reply filed on behalf of the Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division on 11.6.2018. It is stated in

¶33

the affidavit-in-reply that by complying the
necessary formalities including the consultations at
all levels, the petitioner shall be paid the amount
in due course of time.

¶34

7.Learned counsel was justified in making
submission that the direction to the authority would
serve the purpose of approaching this Court by the
petitioner and he was also justified in placing
reliance on the order, dated 22.3.2017.

¶35

8.Learned counsel Mr. Deshpande further
submits that as an abundant caution the petitioner
may be permitted to submit fresh representation to

¶36

5 wp5234.17

¶37

the Secretary, Public Works Department on the
similar lines of the representation, dated 19.2.2016
submitted to the Chief Engineer. Mr. Deshpande,
learned counsel then submits that such representation
would be submitted to respondent no.2 within a period
of one week from today.

¶38

9.Resultantly, in our opinion, the petition

¶39

can be disposed of by issuing directions to added
respondent no.4 Chief Engineer, Public Works
Department, Government of Maharashtra, Nashik, to
decide the claim of the petitioner, as expeditiously
as possible and not later than four months from the
date of order of this Court. If representation is
submitted to respondent no.2, respondent no.2 shall
decide the representation within eight weeks from the

¶40

date of receipt of the representation. Needless to
state that the authority shall take decision on
merits of the representations.

¶41

6 wp5234.17

¶42

10.With the above directions, the petition is
disposed of.

¶43

 [SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.][PRASANNA B.VARALE, J.]

¶44

dbm

Sangamner Loni Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through Its Managing Director Mohammad Israil v. the Governor of Maharashra through Its Executive Engineer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangamner Loni Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through Its Managing Director Mohammad Israil v. the Governor of Maharashra through Its Executive Engineer 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

Lalit Bhakarrao Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Harsha Jitendra Patil Vs Gulabrao Ananda Patil and Others

Kishor Balraj Totawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikhmohd Haneef Haji Mohd Hafeez Vs Peadeep Kumar Vyas and Others

Sudhir Prakashrao Sabane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Tanaji Rambhau Shinde (C-4773), Open Prison, Paithan Vs Sachin Ramesh Salave, Superintendent, Open Prison, Paithan and Another