Disposed

Krupa Services Private Limited Thr. Branch Manager Amit v. Jamble and Ors. v Labour Commissioner and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Nov 2023WP/10646/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of writ petitions challenging the empanelment of private respondents and a Government Resolution. Since a later GR rescinded the impugned order, the challenge was rendered infructuous. Liberty was granted to challenge the fresh GR.

What did the court decide?

Pocket allowed with liberty to challenge the Government Resolution dated 31st October 2023 if so advised.

Krupa Services Private Limited Thr. Branch… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1-WP-10646-2023 +

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 10646 OF 2023

¶5

Krupa Services Private Ltd. & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Labour Commissioner & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 9479 OF 2023

¶8

Nashik Zilla Swayamrojgar Berojgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Mahasang Maryadit, Nashik & Anr. .. Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶11

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9483 OF 2023

¶12

Rayat Swayamrojgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. & Ors. .. Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶15

Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Gaurav Sharma for petitioners in WP/10646/2023.

¶16

Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Sanjay P. Shinde a/w Mr. Prathamesh T. Bhanuwanshe for petitioners in WP/9479/2023 and WP/9483/2023.

¶17

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader a/w Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for State.

¶18

CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

¶19

DATE: 10^th NOVEMBER, 2023

1-WP-10646-2023 +

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned senior advocate representing the petitioners and Mr. Kakade, learned Government Pleader representing the State-respondents.

¶24

2. By means of these petitions, the petitioners, apart from challenging the Government Resolution, dated 6^th September, 2023, have also challenged the empanelment of the private respondents by the State Government for supplying the manpower to different departments.

¶25

3. It has been brought to our notice that in supersession of the earlier Government Resolution, dated 6^th September, 2023, a fresh Government Resolution on the subject has been notified by the State Government on 31^st October, 2023. The learned senior advocate representing the petitioners tenders the said Government Resolution, dated 31^st October, 2023, which is taken on record.

¶26

4. By the Government Resolution, dated 31^st October, 2023, the earlier Government Resolution dated 6^th September, 2023, which is under challenge in these petitions, has been rescinded. Thus, challenge to the Government Resolution, dated 6^th September, 2023 in these writ petitions does not survive and the petitions have been rendered infructuous.

¶27

5. So far as the selection of private respondents as provider of manpower to different departments is concerned, it has been clarified by the learned Government Pleader that in terms of the Government Resolution, dated 31^st October, 2023, no fresh work shall be given to those who were empaneled by means of the process impugned in these

¶28

¶29

1-WP-10646-2023 +

¶30

petitions. He further clarifies that the work being performed currently by the private respondents pursuant to their earlier selection shall come to an end in July, 2024, i.e., within 9 (nine) months of the issuance of the Government Resolution dated 31^st October, 2023.

¶31

6. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners states that in view of the aforesaid clarifications, he does not want to press the prayer made in the writ petitions in relation to challenging the process by which the private respondents were empaneled. He, however, states that liberty may be granted to the petitioners to challenge the Government Resolution, dated 31^st October, 2023 in case they are so advised.

¶32

7. In view of the aforesaid, writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the statement made at bar by the learned Government Pleader, with liberty as prayed for by the petitioners.

¶33

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶34

Digitally signed by PRAVIN PRAVIN DASHARATH DASHARATH PANDIT PANDIT Date: 2023.11.10 18:29:55 +0530

¶35

Krupa Services Private Limited Thr. Branch Manager Amit v. Jamble and Ors. v Labour Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krupa Services Private Limited Thr. Branch Manager Amit v. Jamble and Ors. v Labour Commissioner 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

Seva Samajik Vikas Sanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Anr.

Seva Samajik Vikas Sanstha Thr Its President Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Anr.

God Father Sevabhavi v Bahuuudhesiya Shikshan Sanstha Thr President Vs Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Research and Training Institute and Ors.

Nashik Zilla Swayamrojgar-Berojgar Seva Sahakari Sansthas Mahasang Maryadit, Nashik and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Rayat Swayamrojgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Nashik Thr Its Auhtorized Signatory and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

The Collector Mumbai City vs Shakti Mills Ltd. and Ors.