Dismissed

Prashant S/O Marotrao Chafle v. the Secretary, Govt. of Maha. Irrigation Dept. Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC1 Oct 2019WP/681/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Nagpur Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the allotment of work. The Court held that since the petitioner was given a hearing and his grievances were clarified, the petition was devoid of merits and required no interference.

What did the court decide?

Prayers of the petitioner rejected and Writ Petition dismissed. No costs.

Prashant S/O Marotrao Chafle Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2019)

Order

0110wp681.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 681/2017.

¶6

Prashant Marotrao Chafle

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

The Secretary, Government of Maharashtra and others.

¶9

Office notes, Office Memoranda of

¶10

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders
or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶11

Ms. S. Mudliar, Advocate h/f. Shri S.M. Patrikar, Advocate
for the Petitioner.

¶12

Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri Y.R. Sonkusare, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶13

CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE
& VINAY JOSHI, JJ.

¶14

DATE : OCTOBER 01, 2019.

¶15

Heard.

¶16

2.In response to the notice of this Writ

¶17

Petition, respondent nos. 2 and 3 have filed affidavit

¶18

stating the following in paragraph no.7.

¶19

“7.It will be most pertinent to

¶20

note here that, the petitioner was also
granted opportunity of hearing during all
the meetings held with the petitioner.
The petitioner was patiently given
consideration all the points / grievances

Order

0110wp681.17

raised by the petitioner were clarified to
him by the respondent no.2 and 3. The
allegations of the petitioner that the
authorities are not ready to listen to him
is therefore, strongly denied. In the
backdrop of the above referred facts, the
Respondent no.4 being qualified, was
allotted the work on 4.1.2017 itself and
it is further brought to the notice of this
Hon’ble Court that the work has already
been commenced by the Respondent
No.4. The petition therefore, being
devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed
and the prayers made by the petitioner
being misconceived are liable to be
rejected.”

¶25

3.In view of this, we do not find that this is a
fit case in which interference is called for. Writ
Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

¶26

JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

Rgd.

Prashant S/O Marotrao Chafle v. the Secretary, Govt. of Maha. Irrigation Dept. Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant S/O Marotrao Chafle v. the Secretary, Govt. of Maha. Irrigation Dept. Mumbai and Others

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

Radheshyam S/O Shivaji Lanjewar Vs Municipal Council Tumsar, Bhandara through Its Chief Officer

Suresh S/O Natthuji Porbhare Vs Municipal Council Tumsar, Bhandara through Its Chief Officer

Rajesh S/O Gulabrao Masne Vs Zilla Parishad, through Its Chief Executive Officer, Akola and Another

Sunil S/O Gajanan Rokde Vs Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Va Ashangathit Kamgar Sanghatana Thr President N. S Mahale and Others Vs the State of Maha. Labour, Industries and Engery Dept. Mantalya, Mumbai Thr Secrtary

Shri. Narendra Dharnidhar Gandhi Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur Thr. Its Chairman and Others