Petitioner challenged the Municipal Council's refusal to extend a solid waste removal contract. The Court held disputes regarding work satisfaction are factual and require civil remedy, dismissing the writ petition.
Petitioner directed to seek damages for breach of contract before the Civil Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
60-wp 6266-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6266 OF 2020
Rajendra Narayan Borse
.. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another
.. Respondents
Mr. Kiran M. Nagarkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K. N. Lokhande, AGP for Respondent No. 1. Mr. N. D. Batule, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATED : 04th JANUARY, 2021.
PER COURT :-
. Mr. Nagarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted contract for removal of solid waste of Shevgaon town, District Ahmednagar. The tender was for a period of 36 months. Clause 4 of the agreement also specifies that though the agreement is for one year, it would be continued for two more years. The respondents failed to adhere to the agreement between the parties. The learned counsel further submits that in the affidavit in reply false claim is made by respondents about the unsatisfactory work of the petitioner. The petitioner has given reply to the notices. Even the Municipal Council has recommended for continuation of the contract with the petitioner,
1 of 3
2 60-wp 6266-2020.odt
but the respondents have issued tender notice initially in March 2020 and then again in June 2020. The same is illegal. The respondents be directed to continue the contract with the petitioner for two more years as per the agreement.
2 of 3
3 60-wp 6266-2020.odt
two years extension would be granted to the petitioner. The respondent Municipal Council did not find the work of the petitioner to be satisfactory and as such, has taken decision not to grant extension to the petitioner.
P.S.B.
3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition regarding the non-extension of a municipal contract.
Whether a contract dispute involving allegations of unsatisfactory work is maintainable as a writ petition.
Whether the remedy for breach of contract lies before the writ jurisdiction or a civil court.
Rajendra Narayan Borse
The State of Maharashtra
The Municipal Council, Shevgaon
S. V. GANGAPURWALA
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
