Aniruddha Damodar Chouganjkar v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Public Works Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC18 Apr 2024WP/2615/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this withdrawal proceeding, the Bombay High Court at Nagpur did not decide the merits of the writ petition regarding alleged violations of promissory estoppel in a government allocation policy. The court observed that the existing pleadings were insufficient and granted the petitioner two weeks to file an additional affidavit. The order was adjourned.

What did the court decide?

Time of two weeks granted to the petitioner to file an additional affidavit. Proceedings adjourned.

Aniruddha Damodar Chouganjkar vs State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 wp2615.24

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2615 OF 2024

¶4

( Aniruddha Damodar Chouganjkar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, PWD, Mumbai and others )

¶5

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

¶7

Mr. Yash Maheshwari, Counsel h/f. S.V. Bhutada, Counsel for the petitioner,

¶8

Mr. M.K. Pathan, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶9

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &

¶10

ABHAY J. MANTRI, J J .

¶11

ABHAY J. MANTRI, J J . DATED : 18-04-2024

¶12

Based on the administrative principles of promissory estoppel the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that having regard to the status of the petitioner as that of Retired Engineer with the State Government, certain benefits/privileges were conferred in the matter of allocation of various works for a period of ten years.

¶13

It is claimed that the Government has changed the said policy and has reduced the period for which the benefits/privileges were decided to be conferred.

¶14

According to him, in view of the promise made by the Government, the petitioner has already acted upon and has carried out investments in his business which has prompted into quote competitive prices against the bid.

¶15

2 wp2615.24

¶16

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, so as to substantive his claim, has invited our attention to the fact of the petitioner having acted on the promise made by the Government.

¶17

The pleadings to that effect, in our opinion, are not sufficient.

¶18

That being so, we grant time of two weeks to the petitioner to file additional affidavit.

¶19

Stand over to 03-5-2024.

¶20

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶21

adgokar

¶22

Signed by: MR. P.M. ADGOKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 18/04/2024 16:29:37

Aniruddha Damodar Chouganjkar v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Public Works Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aniruddha Damodar Chouganjkar v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Public Works Department, 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of Maha. Thr. Its Sec. Water Resources, Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others vs Pradip Narayanrao Bhelande and Others

Roshni Prashant Rebhankar vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Nashit Iqbal S/O Khalil Khan and 7 Others vs the State of Maharashtra P.S. Patur Thr. P.S.O., Dist. Akola and 1

Samatdada Gram Vikas Shikshan Sanstha, Lakhi, Yavatmal Thr. Secretary and Anr. vs Regional Deputy Director, Other Backward Classes Welfare Division (Regional), Amravati and Others

Kishor S/O. Kasturchand Kanojiya vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports, Mumbai and Others

Smt. Sharda W/O Ganesh Budhe and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai and Others