Disposed

Sugundha Anand Shelar and 3 Ors. v. the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee

Bombay HC10 Feb 2020WP/3550/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 3550 of 2019 directed that the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee join the petitioners' pending appeal parties and decide the pending intervention application within three months.

What did the court decide?

M/s.S.D. Corporation Pvt.Ltd. to be joined; AGRC to decide Application No.87 of 2017 within three months.

Sugundha Anand Shelar and 3 Ors. Vs the Apex… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

WP 3550-2019.doc

¶2

sat

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3550 OF 2019

¶5

Sugandha Anand Shelar & Ors.

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

vs.

¶8

The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Anr.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr.Gauraj Shah with V.A. Joshi and Umair A. Ansari i/b. Chitnis Vaithy &
Co. for Petitioners.
Mr.G.W. Mattos for Respondent No.1.
Mr.Yogendra Kanchan for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

¶12

DATE : 10 FEBRUARY 2020

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶15

2This writ petition challenges an order passed by Apex
Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) on 19 August 2017 on an
application of Respondent No.2 M/s.S.D. Corporation Pvt.Ltd., who was an
intervener before AGRC and on whose application (Application No.87 of
2017) the impugned order came to be passed. It is apparent from the
impugned order that AGRC has not even decided the intervention
application of SD Corporation Pvt.Ltd.; it has simply stayed the order of 21
July 2017, when the matter was heard earlier at the instance of the
Petitioners herein and was closed for orders.

¶16

3This court, by its order dated 25 April 2017 passed on the writ
petition of the SD Corporation Pvt.Ltd., had directed the Petitioners herein
to file an appeal within week’s time before the appropriate authority (i.e.

1 / 2

WP 3550-2019.doc

sat

High Power Committee and now, AGRC) and directed the authority to
dispose of the appeal within two months. This order was passed on 25
April 2017. As more than 2 and half years have passed since and we are
still at a stage where an intervention application is simply being
entertained by AGRC (and not even decided), this state of affairs obviously
cannot continue.

¶21

3The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of, after hearing all
the parties and by their consent in the following terms :

¶22

(I)M/s.S.D. Corporation Pvt.Ltd. (Respondent No.2 herein) is
directed to be joined as party to the pending appeal filed by
the Petitioners herein, namely, Application No.87 of 2017);

¶23

(II) AGRC shall hear all the parties and decide
Application No.87 of 2017, as expeditiously as possible and at
any rate, within three months from today;

¶24

(III)The parties shall, to that end, appear before AGRC /
Chairman of AGRC on 17 February 2020 and produce an
authenticated copy of this order, whereupon AGRC shall fix
the schedule of hearings (including the timeline for filing of
pleadings, if any) and proceed to hear and decide the
application accordingly;

¶25

(IV)All rights and contentions of the parties on merits
are kept open.

¶26

 (S.C. GUPTE, J.)

¶27

2 / 2

Sugundha Anand Shelar and 3 Ors. v. the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugundha Anand Shelar and 3 Ors. v. the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee

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

Official Liquidator Vs Kanakdhara Stell Ltd.

Official Liquidator Vs M/S. Suvikas Alloys and Steel Pvt. Ltd.

Official Liquidator Vs Sunearth Ceramics Ltd.

Sony Music Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mobimedia International Pte. Ltd. and Anr. and Idea Cellular Ltd. and Anr.(Respondents)

The Indian Express (P) Ltd. and 2 Others Vs Prashant Goenka and 11 Others

The Chief Gen. Mgr. (Hr) Mah. State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Panchappa Dattatraya Takkalgi