Dismissed

Bhaskar Mangal Gadge v. Union of India Thru Mumbai Office at Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jun 2019PIL/54/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the Public Interest Litigation. The petitioners represented grievances regarding alleged payments for work not done in three specific tenders. The Court found the representations lacked specific particulars and actionable details regarding measurement books or payment discrepancies. Consequently, the mandate requiring a decision was not issued, leading to the dismissal

What did the court decide?

No mandamus order issued. The Public Interest Litigation was dismissed on the ground that the representations contained no adequate particulars.

Bhaskar Mangal Gadge Vs Union of India… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(3) PIL 54-19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Amk

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 54 OF 2019

¶5

Bhaskar Mangal Gadge .. Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Vijayprakash Yadav for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. A. R. Varma a/w. Mr. Y. R. Mishra for Respondent No.1-UOI. Mr. Rakesh L. Singh i/b M. V. Kini & Co. for Respondent No.3-NHAI.

¶8

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 21st JUNE, 2019.

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent No.1.

¶11

The Public Interest Litigation is being disposed of without calling for any pleading from the Respondents.

¶12

The Petitioner is a busy body. He claims to espouse a public cause on the premise that Public Interest Litigation No. 179 of 2014 filed by him which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on September 1, 2016 required the 1^st and 3^rd Respondents herein to consider the representation made by the Petitioner in accordance with law. The Petitioner obtained documents under R.T.I. concerning Tender No. B-1/S.E.-01, Tender No. B-1/487 and Tender No.B-1/HO/213. With respect to the information he made two representations on 10.10.2013 pertaining to the first two tenders and a

¶13

1/2

¶14

(3) PIL 54-19

¶15

representation dated 24.12.2013 pertaining to the third tender. The representations being not dealt with, a Public Interest Litigation was filed which was disposed of on September 1, 2016 requiring a decision to be taken on the representation. After the Public Interest Litigation was disposed of, on 02.01.2017 the Petitioner simply wrote a letter to the Respondents enclosing a copy of the order dated 01.09.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶16

Grievance in the instant Public Interest Litigation is to the representations not being decided.

¶17

Before we burden the executive to decide a representation we must be satisfied that the representations contained adequate particulars which need to be dealt with. We have perused the three representations dated 10.10.2013 and 24.12.2013. They are general in nature. Conclusions are stated that for work not done payments were released . In what manner the Petitioner alleges work not being done? In what manner the measurement book does not record work done but payment being made? No particulars has been mentioned. Therefore, we issue no mandamus for the reasons unless the Petitioner does a proper research and with reference to the documents which he possesses makes an actionable representation, the authority to which the representation is made cannot be burdened with the responsibility to decide the representations. The Public Interest Litigation is dismissed.

¶18

[N. M. JAMDAR, J.]

¶19

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶20

2/2

Bhaskar Mangal Gadge v. Union of India Thru Mumbai Office at Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar Mangal Gadge v. Union of India Thru Mumbai Office at Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai 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

Adil Khatri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nityanand Harnarayan Mishra Vs the Urban Land Development Minister Govt. of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Rajput Mahasabha Seva Sangh Vs the State of Maharashtra and 8 Others

Ketan Tirodkar Vs State of Maharashtra Via Addl. Chief Secretary

Ajit Shantaram Mahadik Vs Maharashtra Housing Development Authority (Mhada) and 4 Ors.

Sudhir Pralhad Barge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sajid Usman Batliwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr Shivaji Shringrao Bhise and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Adil Khatri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nityanand Harnarayan Mishra Vs the Urban Land Development Minister Govt. of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Mr. Eknath Bapuj Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhushan Sanjay Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Sanjay Ramesh More and 2 Ors. Vs Bombay Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Advance Locality Management Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.