Dismissed

Shafik Kankarbhai Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC13 Aug 2019WP/1660/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the non-allotment of a reserved shop after being the highest bidder. The single-judge blog held that the decision to re-auction was not mala fide and was within the respondents' jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no costs.

Shafik Kankarbhai Shaikh Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

98.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

98 WRIT PETITION NO.1660 OF 2018

¶4

SHAFIK KANKARBHAI SHAIKH

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Saeed S. Shaikh, h/f Mr. Shaikh Faruk V

¶8

Patel

¶9

AGP for Respondents No. 1 : Mr. S.B. Yawalkar. Advocate for Respondents No. 2,3 & 4 : Mr. Munde Suresh W.

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 13/08/2019

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

1 Mr. Saeed Shaikh, holding for Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the highest bidder for the shop reserved for allotment to physically handicapped person. The

¶13

learned counsel submits that the petitioner and respondent No. 5 were the bidders. The petitioner had quoted Rs. 1,66,000/- and was the highest bidder, still allotment letter is not issued to the petitioner. The respondents are not proceeding further.

¶14

2 Mr. Mundhe learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that the shop did not receive expected price as such not only in respect of shop No. 9 but the auction for many other shops was also

¶15

1/2

¶16

98.odt

¶17

cancelled. The respondents are going to issue fresh publication and inviting fresh bids, even for the shop reserved for the physically handicapped person.

¶18

We do not find any malifide. There are only two bidders from physically handicapped category. Naturally, for the bidding to be more competitive, the respondents have taken a decision to re-auction the shops including the shop reserved for the physically handicapped person. As the decision is not a malafide one, we would not interfere in our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

Mr. Mundhe learned counsel submits that as the auction proceeding is cancelled, the respondents will refund the earnest amount deposited by the petitioner. The same must be refunded expeditiously prior to next auction.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

¶22

mkd

¶23

2/2

Shafik Kankarbhai Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shafik Kankarbhai Shaikh 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

Rajendra Hariba Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vaishali Laxmansingh Tehara Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Balaji Madhusudan Bhange Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gulabrao Umrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sandip Shankarrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Fountainhead Infosolutions Private Limited through Authorized Director Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others