Disposed

Priyank Enterprises Throu. Authorised Person Saurabh Sunil Sul v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. District Collector Pune and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Apr 2024WP/293/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a tender disqualification notice became infructuous when the Pune Municipal Corporation, by email, recalled the notice and allowed the petitioner and respondent no. 11 to participate in the tender from the stage of disqualification. The Court disposed of the petition in terms of that statement.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of the Corporation's statement recalling the disqualification notice dated 15/12/2023; bidders allowed to participate from the stage of disqualification.

Priyank Enterprises Throu. Authorised Person… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

902-WP.293.2024

¶2

Jvs.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 293 OF 2024

¶5

Priyank Enterprises } Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. } Respondents

¶8

Mr. Vikramjit Garewal with Mr. Ajinkya Udane for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader and Ms. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for respondent no. 1.

¶10

Mr. Vishwanath Patil for respondents 2 to 8. Mr. Chinmay Patil with Mr. Seoul Shah for respondent no. 9.

¶11

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

¶12

DATE: 25^th APRIL 2024

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1. The Court, on 22^nd April 2024, passed the following order:-

¶15

“1. Learned counsel representing the Pune Municipal Corporation tenders copy of an email communication received by him from the Deputy Municipal Commissioner informing that the Corporation has taken a decision recalling the disqualification notice dated 15^th December 2023, which is under challenge in this petition. The said email communication is taken on record.

¶16

2. Stand over to 25^th April 2024 to enable learned counsel for the respective parties to seek instructions on the said email communication.”

¶17

¶18

902-WP.293.2024

¶19

2. The email communication, as mentioned in our order dated 22^nd April 2024, is extracted herein below: -

¶20

“The respondent corporation has taken a decision recalling the disqualification notice date 15/12/2023 put up on Pmc website disqualifying to petitioner Priyank Enterprises and respondent no. 11 Shree enterprises. The respondent corporation shall allow petitioner Priyank enterprises and the respondent no. 11 Shree enterprises to participate from the stage where they are disqualified. And thereafter eligible bidder shall be selected (as per the terms and conditions) for the tender no. PMC-463/2023.

¶21

Therefore you are requested to inform Hon.Court tomorrow to withdraw the disqualification notice dated 15/12/2023.”

¶22

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall deposit EMD amount by tomorrow.

¶23

Digitally signed by JAYANT JAYANT VISHWANATH VISHWANATH SALUNKE SALUNKE Date: 2024.04.25 19:38:32 +0530

¶24

4. In view of the aforesaid development, nothing needs to be adjudicated any further in this petition, which is hereby disposed of in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the Corporation based on the email communication received by him.

¶25

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

¶26

Priyank Enterprises Throu. Authorised Person Saurabh Sunil Sul v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. District Collector Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyank Enterprises Throu. Authorised Person Saurabh Sunil Sul v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. District Collector Pune and Ors.

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

Asian Paints Ltd. vs Subodh Jain

Hindustan Infrastructure vs Vishwas Apartment Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Digamber Raghunath Mungekar and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Tata Capital Limited vs K K Motors

Abdur Rahman vs Union of India Thr the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs and Anr.

Gayatri Jhaveri vs the Official Liquidator High Court Bombay and Anr.