Dismissed

Hemant Yashwant Dhage v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC27 Aug 2024PIL/67/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged a resolution approving a 4% cost increase for a hospital project. The Court dismissed the petition, finding the increase was reduced by 5% from the winning bidder's quote and corrected the petitioner's mischaracterization of the hike.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; costs of Rs.10,000/- awarded to the Corporation.

Hemant Yashwant Dhage Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:19494-DB

¶2

P.I.L. No.67/2023

¶3

:: 1 ::

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.67 OF 2023

¶6

Hemant s/o Yashwant Dhage … Petitioner

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Shri G.V. Mohekar, Advocate for Petitioner Mrs. P.J. Bharad, A.G.P. for respondents – State Shri K.N. Lokhande, Advocate for respondents No.5 & 6

¶11

CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE: 27th AUGUST, 2024.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has, ostensibly, been filed in public interest, with a prayer to quash the Resolution dated 12/01/2022, passed by the respondent Corporation, whereby the decision was taken to construct a hospital along with upgraded/ modern facilities for the poor and downtrodden people in the city of Ahmednagar, at Survey No.46/1, Chahurana, Ahmednagar. The other prayers made by the petitioner is that the approval

¶14

P.I.L. No.67/2023

¶15

:: 2 ::

¶16

granted by the Collector on 2/3/2024 for construction of the said new hospital may also be quashed. A further prayer made in the petition is to set aside, the resolution No.37 dated 10/6/2022 said to have been passed by the respondent Corporation thereby resolving to grant 4% increase in the estimated cost, to be paid to the contractor.

¶17

This Court, passed an order on 23/2/2024 specifically denying entertaining the Writ Petition in respect of the prayers made for quashing the sanction etc. granted for construction of the hospital. The petition was entertained by the said order only in respect of the issue relating to the alleged hike of 4% to the estimated cost to be paid to the contractor for completion of the project. The order dated 23/2/2024 passed by this Court is extracted hereinbelow :

¶18

“1. The project work is completed beyond 35% as per the admission of the Petitioner.

¶19

We are not entertaining this Public Interest Litigation as construction of a charitable hospital is involved.

¶20

A sudden hike of 4% immediately after tenders were opened, is the only issue to be considered, in

¶21

P.I.L. No.67/2023

¶22

:: 3 ::

¶23

this PIL. Shri Lokhande, learned Advocate for the Corporation, seeks time to take instructions.

¶24

Stand over to 7^th March, 2024.”

¶25

After the said order was passed, Civil Application No.3561/2024 has been moved seeking amendments in the petition as per proposed paragraphs 25-A, 25-B and 25-C. These averments have been sought to be inserted in the petition along with certain ground.

¶26

By a separate order passed by us today we have already rejected the said Civil Application. Thus, the only challenge made in the Writ Petition to be considered now by the Court is in respect of the prayer made by the petitioner for quashing the decision for granting 4% hike to the estimated cost, to be paid to the contractor on completion of the work.

¶27

A detailed affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent Corporation wherein it has clearly been stated that in the bid process two tenderers namely M/s Spectrum Infrastructures and M/s Gandhi Construction were technically qualified and on opening of the financial bid, the financial bid

¶28

P.I.L. No.67/2023

¶29

:: 4 ::

¶30

quoted by M/s Spectrum Infrastructures was found to be 15% higher than the estimated cost of the project which as per the tender document is Rs.23,84,34,238/-.

¶31

As compared to the rate quoted by Spectrum Infrastructures the other qualified bidder M/s Gandhi Construction – respondent No.7 quoted the financial bid which was only 9.99% over and above the estimated cost and accordingly, as submitted by learned counsel representing the respondent Corporation, the respondent No.7 – M/s Gandhi Construction was invited for negotiations.

¶32

In the negotiations held with M/s Gandhi Construction, the said bidder agreed to carry out the entire work only at a hike of 4% to the estimated cost. Thus, the amount to be paid to the contractor in terms of the subject bid was brought down by 5% in comparison to what was quoted by the respondent No.7.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that, the said hike of 4% was over and above the rate quoted by the respondent No.7 which fact is absolutely incorrect and is not borne out of the record. Learned counsel

¶34

P.I.L. No.67/2023

¶35

:: 5 ::

¶36

representing the petitioner has utterly failed to establish that 4% hike was to the rate quoted by the respondent No.7, to the contrary as is revealed from the record available on this Writ Petition, 4% hike was granted to the respondent No.7 over and above the estimated cost and accordingly, in fact the rate quoted by the respondent No.7 was reduced by 5%.

¶37

In the aforesaid view of the matter, there is nothing on record to establish the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. If we see the prayer clauses B(iii) and B(iv) in the Writ Petition, what we find that the petitioner has described the resolution dated 14/6/2023 as 4% increase in the estimated cost and not 4% increase in the rate quoted by respondent No.7. Thus, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner runs contrary to the averments in the Writ Petition itself.

¶38

For the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. It is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) which shall be paid by the petitioner with Government Cancer Hospital, Aurangabad. He will file a receipt thereof in the registry of this Court within a period of eight weeks from today. If the petitioner fails to

¶39

P.I.L. No.67/2023

¶40

:: 6 ::

¶41

tender the receipt of deposit under this order, the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court shall proceed to recover the costs as arrears of land revenue through the Collector/ District Magistrate concerned.

¶42

(KISHORE C. SANT, J.)

¶43

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶44

fmp/-

Hemant Yashwant Dhage v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Yashwant Dhage v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

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

Chandrakant C. Shah vs Union of India

Sandeep Mohanlal Pahuja vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and Ors.

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

Praveen Ramsajeevan Pandey vs Union of India through Its Cabinet Secretary

Vanashakti Public Trust and an Environmental Non -Governmental Organization vs Muncipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Municipal Commissioner

Mohanlal Jagdish Khare Vs the Union of India Thr. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi and Anr.

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

Prakruti Foundation, Thr. Its President, Deepak Bharatsingh Dixit vs Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and Others

Vijaysinh Shrirangrao Vidhate and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Satish Eknath Pawar Vs the District Collector and Another

Mohd. Raza Khan Mohd. Abdul Sattar Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Lata Bhaskarrao Dabhade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Dagadu Sakharam Talule and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Ramesh Bhanudas Jadhav vs the Executive Engineer Irrigation Project Majbutikaran Division Omerga and Ors.