Disposed

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole and Others v. State of Maha., Thr.Secretary, Dept. of Agriculture, Animal Husb., Dairy and Fisheries and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Nov 2024PIL/34/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL challenged a Government Resolution deleting certain items from the DBT scheme. Respondents raised a preliminary objection on territorial jurisdiction, relying on a decision where a tender challenge was refused at Nagpur Bench. The Court held the Resolution had statewide repercussions and local beneficiaries, so the Nagpur Bench has jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Preliminary objection on territorial jurisdiction rejected; matter adjourned to 14.10.2024.

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole and Others vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

956-pil-34-24.odt

¶2

1/3

¶3

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

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 34 OF 20 24

¶5

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole and ors. -Vs-State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶6

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶8

¶9

Mr. Rohit Joshi a/w Mr. Madhur Deo, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Subodh Dharmadhikari Senior counsel a/b Saurav Rajurkar, counsel for respondent No.2.

¶10

Mr. Harish Dangre a/w Mr. Bhushan Joshi, counsel for respondent No.3. Mr.N.R.Saboo counsel for respondent No.5.

¶11

CORAM VINAY JOSHI &

¶12

MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 26^th SEPTEMBER, 2024.

¶13

The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 initially urged to decide the preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

¶14

The learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has pointed out that similar challenge has been raised in Writ Petition No.3260 of 2024 at Principal Seat, Mumbai. In response, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a statement that he has no objection to hear the petition either at Mumbai or Nagpur. However, adhered to his stand about maintainability before this Bench.

¶15

Heard all concerned to that extent.

¶16

It is submitted that the principal challenge in

Kavita

956-pil-34-24.odt

2/3

the petition is to the Government Resolution dated 12.03.2023, a policy decision has been taken whereby deletion of certain equipments/items from DBT scheme and allocation of funds for procurement of deleted items. The challenge is on the ground that the decision for deletion which reflected in the GR dated 12.05.2024 was taken in Mumbai, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Principal Seat and therefore, the Principal Seat has only jurisdiction. To substantiate the said contention, our attention has been invited to the decision of this Court in the case of M/s food Safety Services V. State of Maharashtra and ors. In Writ Petition NO.2108 of 2023 , wherein this Court has declined to entertain the petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction pertaining to a tender process.

¶21

With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have gone through paragraph Nos.10 and 12, wherein we could find that it was a challenge raised by unsuccessful bidder, who participated in E-tender process published at Pune and decision was taken at Pune. In such a background, the unsuccessful bidder, who has merely participated in the process through online mode from Nagpur has sought to challenge the entire process at Nagpur Bench and in such a factual scenario, this Court has expressed that Nagpur Bench has no jurisdiction. We are unable to persuade ourselves to apply the said ratio since, this is not a case, where we could say that the petition is failing on similar line. Herein the Government has taken a policy decision vide resolution dated

Kavita

956-pil-34-24.odt

3/3

12.03.2024, which admittedly is having repercussions throughout the State. It is not in dispute that the inhabitants of the local jurisdiction of this Court would be the beneficiaries. In this scenario, whether challenge can be is thrown out of the Court by stating that the decision for initiating Government Resolution has taken in Mumbai, the answer would be simply in the negative as the Government Resolution has repercussions spread over the State and the beneficiaries are admittedly belonging to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. We are not inclined to accept the initial objection. Moreover, we have considered the three decisions cited by the petitioner to support the maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation before this Bench. Having regard to the above facts, we record our finding that this Bench has territorial jurisdiction to go on with the matter.

¶26

Stand over to 14.10.2024.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Kavita Date: 01/10/2024 13:43:13

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole and Others v. State of Maha., Thr.Secretary, Dept. of Agriculture, Animal Husb., Dairy and Fisheries and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole and Others v. State of Maha., Thr.Secretary, Dept. of Agriculture, Animal Husb., Dairy and Fisheries and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Neeraj Triyuginarayan Mishra vs State of Maharashtra, Water Resources Department

Shri. Nagnath Uddhav Kadam vs the State of Maharashtra through Prin. Secretary, Dept. of Textile and Co-Op. and Ors.

Sandeep Mohanlal Pahuja vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and Ors.

Vilas Kailas Pawara vs the State of Maharashtra Public Works Department through Its Chief Secretary and Others

Rajkumar Alias Ambadas Vasantrao Deshmukh and Another vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Others

Salauddin Iqbaluddin Khaja vs State of Maharashtra Thru. Principal Secretary Urban Development Dept.

Suhas Hari Pingle vs Union of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole and Others vs State of Maha., Thr.Secretary, Dept. of Agriculture, Animal Husb., Dairy and Fisheries and Ors.

Gopal Rameshwar Atal and Otehrs vs State of Maha. Thr. Sec. Agriculture, Animal Husbandry Dairy Dev. and Fishery Dept. Mumbai and Ors.

Laxmibai Dhonduji Petkar, Dead Thr. Lrs. Janabai Laxman Surtkar and Others vs Western Coalfields Ltd. Thr. Chief General Manager, Chandrapur

Shriram Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd,Jaipur Having Its Br. Office at Nagpur Thr. Its Legal Officer vs Uma Omprakash Mishra and Others

Ajay S/O Manohar Tayade vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Buldhana and Another

Oam Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Authorized Signatory, Shrinivasrao Sambashivarao Vinnakota vs M/S Aanand Enterprises Thr. Proprietor, Mr. Surendra Munjwani

Laxman Sakharam Atram (Dead) Vs Renukabai W/O Bapuji Sidam (Dead)