Disposed

Nilkanth Baban Kanade and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Dec 2021WP/6536/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP 6536 of 2021, the Bombay High Court held that a prayer to quash an issued tender with opened bids was infructuous. The Court instead permitted a representation to the Chief Engineer and disposed of the matter, leaving contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Court permitted petitioners to make a representation to the Chief Engineer within three weeks for decision within four weeks; Writ Petition disposed.

Nilkanth Baban Kanade and Anr. Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 15-WP 6536-21.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.6536 OF 2021

¶4

Nilkanth Baban Kanade & Ors.

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Thr. its Secretary, Rural Development Department AND Thr. its Secretary, Public Works Department & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Amit Sale with Mr. Tukaram Shendge for the Petitioners. Mr.Y.D. Patil, AGP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : A.A. SAYED & ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 21ST DECEMBER 2021

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs :-

¶13

“A) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature thereby be pleased to quash and set aside the tender notice dated 6/8/2021 calling for tender for development of the road (at Exhibit I) between Parmeshwar PimpriDadpur chowk to Pirtakali.

¶14

B) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, thereby directing the respondent No.1 to 3 to issue tender for development and upgradation of ODR-37 running between Kurul to Shingoli via Dadpur Chowk.”

1 of 2

Mugdha

2 15-WP 6536-21.odt

Insofar as the Prayer Clause (A) is concerned, since the

¶19

tender is already issued and the bids have been opened, the said Prayer is rendered infructuous.

¶20

Insofar as the Prayer Clause (B) is concerned, we permit the Petitioners to make a representation to Respondent No.2-Chief Engineer, Maharashtra Rural Road Development Association. If such representation is made within three weeks from today, the same shall be decided within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of said representation.

¶21

We leave it to the Chief Engineer to take a call on whether he

¶22

wants to hear the Petitioners before deciding the said representation.

¶23

Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶24

All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶25

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (A.A. SAYED, J.)

¶26

MUGDHA M PARANJAPE

¶27

Digitally signed by MUGDHA M PARANJAPE Date: 2021.12.22 11:25:14 +0530

¶28

2 of 2

¶29

Mugdha

Nilkanth Baban Kanade and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilkanth Baban Kanade and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Mithanagar Kaveri Chsl Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 5 Ors.

Mr. Shirish Bhaskar Sathaye Vs the Nashik Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal Commissioner and Anr.

F.N.Social, Educational Medical Charities Trust through Its Trustees Lazarus S. Chinnappa and Anr. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Anr.

Abhubakhar Mohammad Shaikh Vs the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation

Nitin Jaising Kamble and Anr. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Radha Vishvanath Bhegade Vs the Pune Municipal Corporation Thr. Commissioner and Ors.