Disposed¶4

Rajkumar Shishram Bugalia v. the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Bombay HC1 Apr 2025WP/1239/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against tender notice restricted to Labour Co-operative Societies; Government Resolution dated 28 February 2024; 33:33:34 division amongst Labour Co-operative Societies, Educated Unemployed Engineers and Eligible Registered Regular Contractors; works up to Rs.50,00,000/-; MHADA; sweeping and cleaning work; unskilled workers; petition disposed with direction to MHADA to follow the Resolution; Bombay High Court, Alok Aradhe CJ and Sandeep V. Marne J.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with observations; no quashing or setting aside of the tender notice; MHADA directed to ensure distribution of works tendered in a year in the ratio 33:33:34 in terms of the Government Resolution dated 28 February 2024. ¶4

Rajkumar Shishram Bugalia vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶4

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned tender notice inviting bids only from Labour Co-operative Societies, thereby allotting 100% of the tendered works to that category, is infirm in view of the Government Resolution dated 28 February 2024 requiring division of works in the ratio 33:33:34 amongst Labour Co-operative Societies, Educated Unemployed Engineers and Eligible Registered Regular Contractors. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

Under the Government Resolution dated 28 February 2024, the overall works of an organisation up to the value of Rs.50,00,000/- are to be distributed in the ratio 33:33:34 amongst Labour Co-operative Societies, Educated Unemployed Engineers and Eligible Registered Regular Contractors; it is not that the works of each individual tender notice are required to be divided in that ratio.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

The impugned tender notice is mainly for sweeping and cleaning work, which cannot be performed by educated unemployed engineers; accordingly, no infirmity can be traced in the tender notice initiating bids only from Labour Co-operative Societies.

¶4

Key takeaways

The scope of the Petition does not extend to minute scrutiny of the entire works allotted by MHADA to various categories of contractors during 2024-25; the Court therefore did not independently verify MHADA's claim of distribution in the prescribed ratio.ratio¶4
MHADA shall ensure that the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 28 February 2024 are followed by distributing the various works tendered in a year in the prescribed ratio of 33:33:34.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ. and Sandeep V. Marne, J. (judgment per Marne, J.), 5 August 2025, Writ Petition No.1239 of 2025. The petitioner, a registered regular contractor (proprietor of R. Kumar Construction Co.), challenged a tender notice inviting bids only from Labour Co-operative Societies, contending it violated the Government Resolution dated 28 February 2024 under which works up to Rs.50,00,000/- are to be divided 33:33:34 amongst Labour Co-operative Societies, Educated Unemployed Engineers and Eligible Registered Regular Contractors. Held: (i) the Resolution operates on the organisation's overall works, not on each individual tender notice; (ii) the impugned notice pertains mainly to sweeping and cleaning work which educated unemployed engineers cannot perform, so no infirmity arises in confining bids to Labour Co-operative Societies (MHADA's affidavit stating the tendered works are to be performed by unskilled workers was noted); (iii) the Court declined to undertake minute scrutiny of MHADA's aggregate distribution of works for 2024-25. Petition disposed of with a direction that MHADA ensure distribution of the year's tendered works in the prescribed 33:33:34 ratio.

¶1

k 1/3 4 wp 1239.25 db os.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1239 OF 2025

¶4

Rajkumar Shishram Bugalia Proprietor of R. Kumar Construction Co. ....Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents

¶5

Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harshal H. Savla i/b Mr. Mayur V. Faria for the Petitioner.

¶6

Ms. Jaymala Ostwal, Additional GP for for Respondent Nos.1 & 7/ State.

¶7

Mr. P.G. Lad with Ms. Anjali Maskar for Respondent Nos.2 to 6/ MHADA

¶8

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶9

DATE : 5 AUGUST 2025.

¶10

P.C. (Per Sandeep V. Marne) :

¶11

Petitioner has filed this Petition challenging the impugned tender notice on the ground that only Labour Co-operative Societies are permitted to bid for the tendered works. Petitioner's grievance is that under the Government Resolution dated 28 February 2024, works upto value of Rs.50,00,000/- are required to be divided in the ratio of 33:33:34 amongst Labour Co-operative Societies, Educated Unemployed Engineers and Eligible Registered Regular Contractors. Petitioner contends that the impugned tender

¶12

k Page No. 1 of 3

¶13

k 2/3 4 wp 1239.25 db os.doc

¶14

notice invites bids only from the category of Labour Co-operative Societies thereby allotting 100% of the said works to that category alone.

¶15

We have heard Mr. Damle, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Lad, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 6 (MHADA) and Ms. Ostwal, the learned Additional GP appearing for State.

¶16

Careful perusal of the Government Resolution dated 28 February 2024 indicates that the overall works of an organization upto the value of Rs.50,00,000/- are to be distributed in the ratio of 33:33:34 amongst Labour Co-operative Societies, Educated Unemployed Engineers and Eligible Registered Regular Contractors. It is not that the works of each tender notice are required to be divided into the said ratio of 33:33:34. We have perused the Affidavit-in-Reply filed on behalf of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority ( MHADA ) in which it is pointed out that during the year 2024-25 MHADA has divided various works in the prescribed ratio. It is further pointed out in the Affidavit that the works which are tendered in the impugned notice are to be performed by unskilled workers and therefore bids are invited from Labour Co-operative Societies.

¶17

Petitioner has attempted to dispute the claim of MHADA about distribution of all works with the ratio of 33:33:34. However, k Page No. 2 of 3

¶18

k 3/3 4 wp 1239.25 db os.doc

¶19

the scope of the Petition does not include minute scrutiny of the entire works allotted by MHADA to various categories of contracts during 2024-25. The Petition challenges the impugned tender notice, which is mainly issued for sweeping and cleaning work, which cannot be performed by educated unemployed engineers. In that view of the matter, no infirmity can be traced in the impugned tender notice initiating bids only for Labour Co-operative Societies. However, MHADA shall ensure that provisions of Government Resolution dated 28 February 2024 are followed by distributing various works tendered in a year in the prescribed ratio of 33:33:34. With the above observations, the Petition is disposed of.

¶20

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶21

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶22

Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date: 2025.08.06 17:57:45 +0530

¶23

Page No. 3 of 3

¶24

Rajkumar Shishram Bugalia v. the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Shishram Bugalia v. the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandrakant v. Shah vs Axis Finance Limited and Ors.

Jitendra Shah vs M/s Sheth and Sonal Developers

Vinod Kumar Sharma vs Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited

Phonographic Performance Limited vs Rock and Storm Hospitality

Tata Capital Limited vs Tej Pal Kanaram Choudhary

Eskag Sanjeevani Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary for Ministry of Health and Family Welfare