Disposed

Sopan S/O Maroti Kendre v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary of Dept. of Soil and Water Conservation, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC22 Mar 2022WP/219/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench disposed of a writ petition challenging termination of a construction contract and imposition of a fine. The court held the contract matter can be tried civilly but permitted petitioner to seek waiver of fine regarding Respondent No.4. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of with liberty to make a representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make a representation to Respondent No.4 regarding waiver or reduction of fine; Writ Petition disposed of.

Sopan S/O Maroti Kendre Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2022)

Order

2203wp219-22

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 219 OF 2022.

¶6

Sopan Maroti Kendre. …. Petitioner.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Maharashtra and others. …. Respondents.

¶9

Mr.U.R. Phasate, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.N.S. Rao, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 22 MARCH 2022.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶14

The Petitioner has challenged communications dated 17 August 2021 and 24 November 2021 issued by Respondent No.3. The Petitioner was awarded a tender in respect of construction of Gated Storage Weir in Bhandrawati, District Chandrapur. He was given a work order on 4 June 2019 and he was to complete the said work within a period of 12 months. Since the Petitioner did not carry out the work on the ground that there were rains, on 18

Order

2203wp219-22

January 2021, the Respondents called upon the Petitioner to complete the work by 31 March 2021. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 17 August 2021 the Petitioners contract was terminated.

¶19

As regards the action of termination of contract is concerned, the Petitioner, when given the contract in June 2019 was aware of the rainy season and that alone cannot be the ground not to complete the work. Furthermore the termination of contract would be a contractual matter and if the Petitioner has any claim for damages, the Petitioner can always institute appropriate proceedings.

¶20

As regards the order dated 24 November 2021 imposing the fine, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that fine should not be imposed, as the Petitioner could not complete the work due to Covid-19 Pandemic. As to the contention for waiver or reduction of fine, we permit the Petitioner to make a representation to Respondent No.4, who will consider the representation of the Petitioner as per law, after considering all relevant aspects and communicate the decision to the Petitioner.

¶21

With these observations, Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶22

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J) (NITIN JAMDAR, J)

¶23

Rgd

Sopan S/O Maroti Kendre v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary of Dept. of Soil and Water Conservation, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sopan S/O Maroti Kendre v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary of Dept. of Soil and Water Conservation, 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

Wave, a Partnership Firm, Nagpur through Authorized Partner, Kumar S/O Washi Chugani and Others Vs the Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Nagpur and Another

Mauli Dnyaneshwar Gram Vikas Bahuuddeshiya Pratisthan, Jawala, Yavatmal Thr. Secy., a. B. Thakur Vs State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secy. Dept., of Higher and Technical Education, Mumbai and Others

Nishant S/O Pandurang Jagre Vs Subhash S/O R. Chaudhari and Another

Shreyash S/O Sandip Katole Vs the S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Member Secretary and Dy. Director, Amravati

Smt. Sandhya Wd/O Chandrabhushan Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary State Excise Dept. Mumbai and Others

Smt. Chhayabai Wd/O Bhimrao Deogade Vs the Union of India, through General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and Others