Disposed

Rajesh Waman Rane v. Maharashtra Housing Area and Development Authority and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2023PIL/19/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a PIL petition challenging the promotion of an officer found guilty of fraud in a tender process and the alleged non-action on a vigilance report. The court held that the petitioner lacks locus standi regarding the promotion issue and that the financial discrepancy was rectified before the complaint was filed.

What did the court decide?

The PIL petition is disposed of. No costs awarded.

Rajesh Waman Rane Vs Maharashtra Housing Area and Development… — Corruption | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Diksha Rane 42. PIL 19-2023.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by DIKSHA DIKSHA DINESH DINESH RANE RANE Date: 2023.03.21 11:44:20 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.19 OF 2023

¶5

Rajesh Waman Rane ..Petitioner VS. Maharashtra Housing Area and Development Authority & ors. ..Respondents

¶6

Adv. Dr. Suresh Mane i/b. Adv. Babita Pandey for the petitioner.

¶7

Adv. P. G. Lad a/w. Adv. Sayali Apte & Adv. Shreya Shah for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 (MHADA).

¶8

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶9

DATE: MARCH 20, 2023

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel Dr. Mane for the petitioner and

¶12

learned counsel Mr. Lad for MHADA.

¶13

2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, duplicate tenders were fraudulently prepared and excess amount was paid to the contractor at the behest of the respondent no.4. The vigilance enquiry was also conducted against the respondent no.4 who was found guilty. Still the respondent no.1 went on promoting the respondent no.4 to Chief ICT Ofocer. Further action is not taken pursuant to the

¶14

1/3

¶15

Diksha Rane 42. PIL 19-2023.doc

¶16

vigilance report.

¶17

3. Learned counsel Mr. Lad for the respondents submits that it was by mistake that the excess amount was paid. The bid of LDS Infotech Private Limited is Rs.1,16,72,625/-. Later they submitted documents enhancing the amount to Rs.1,24,85,644/-. This happened because original proposal i.e. bid and bid proposal was misplaced. When it came to the knowledge, the mistake was rectified and letter dated 19/9/2019 was issued to refund the excess amount Rs.8,12,644 along with interest and the said amount was refunded by LDS Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

¶18

4. We have considered the submissions.

¶19

5. In the present PIL petition we would not go into vigilance enquiry report and further steps undertaken pursuant thereto. That would be a different aspect altogether. The parties can act upon the vigilance report.

¶20

6. As far as the recovery is concerned, the same was made even before filing of complaint by the petitioner. It is not the case that because of the complaint of the petitioner, the respondent nos.1 and 4 rectified the mistake. Prior to the complaint, the mistake was rectified and excess amount

¶21

2/3

¶22

Diksha Rane 42. PIL 19-2023.doc

¶23

recovered.

¶24

7. As far as promotion is concerned, under service jurisprudence, the petitioner would not have locus standi in respect of the same. In the light of that the PIL petition is disposed of.

¶25

8. No costs.

¶26

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶27

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶28

3/3

Rajesh Waman Rane v. Maharashtra Housing Area and Development Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Waman Rane v. Maharashtra Housing Area and Development Authority and Ors.

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

Haishankar Raman Kunan Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Secretary Dept. of Public Works and Ors.

Suresh Vitthalrao Barge and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Anr.

Premeya Welfare Foundation vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Joshi Shivshankar Jatashankar Vs District Collector, Mumbai Suburban District and 4 Ors.

Dhananjay Raghunath Kulkarni and Anr. Vs Respondent no. 1 is deleted as per Courts order dtd 24/11/2022

Bhagvanji Raiyani vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Bhagvanji Raiyani vs Directorate General of Civil Aviation and Another

Rayat Kranti Sanghatana Karad through Vice President M.Ambekari vs Chief Executive Officer Karad and Ors.

Anant Laxman Murudkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Kamlesh Raghunath Chaudhari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Minstry of Finance and Ors.

Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport and General Kamagar Union Vs the Chairman the Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board and Ors.

Ashok Shyamrao Choudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yashwant Ganpat Amrute Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary and Ors.

Chintamani Projects Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Dept. of Public Works and Ors.