Bombay High Court
M/S. Shree Ram Construction, ... vs Amravati Housing And Area Devp. ... on 20 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment. wp5958.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5958 OF 2015.
M/s. Shree Ram Construction,
a Partnership Firm through its
Partner Vaibhav s/o Sahebrao Lendhe,
r/o. Ashraya Niwas, Rajshree Shahu
Nagar, Daryapur Road,
Anjangaon (Surji),
District Amravati. ..... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. Amravati Housing and Area
Development Board, (A Regional Unit
of MHADA), through its Executive
Engineer having office at : Griha
Nirman Bhavan, Tope Nagar,
Amravati.
2.M/s. Halko Infra Projects,
Mumbai, 14, Goraji Chinmaya, C.H.S.
Ltd. Off Gorai Road, Near Zoor Plaza,
Opp. Shanti Daan, Plot no.3, R.S.C.I.
Gorai-III, Boriwali (W)
Mumbai 400 092.
e-mail : [email protected] ..... RESPONDENTS.
::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:02:49 :::
Judgment. wp5958.15
2
--------------------------
Shri Firdos Mirza, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri P.N. Kothari, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
Shri A.M. Kukdey, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
--------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
& P.N. DESHMUKH
,
J J.
ig DATE : APRIL 20, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
Considering the nature of controversy, and with
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties present Writ
Petition is taken up for final disposal. Rule is issued in the
matter, and the same is made returnable forthwith.
2. Notice inviting tender published on 02.06.2013 is,
questioned by the petitioner on the ground that on 01.01.2014,
the notice itself was dropped. However, thereafter
surreptitiously work order has been issued to respondent no.2
on 01.04.2015. Respondent no.2 does not satisfy the condition
Judgment. wp5958.15
no.17 of NIT, as he has not completed 50% of the work of any
residential building independently.
3. Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the alleged communication dated 04.07.2014,
pressed into service by the respondents to urge that petitioner
has withdrawn its objection against respondent no.2, is denied
by the petitioner, as it is a false and fabricated document.
4. Shri Kothari, learned Counsel for the respondent
no.1 is relying upon the reply-affidavit. He submits that the
petitioner has withdrawn the objection raised against
respondent no.2, and as such the petition, as filed is, without
any locus. He points out that in any case even before the
objection was raised, respondent no.2 was found to be the
lowest bidder.
5. Shri Kukday, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.2 adopts the argument of Shri Kothari, learned
Judgment. wp5958.15
counsel for respondent no.1. He submits that completion of
50% of work by the respondent no.2 as per clause 17 is
sufficient, and after verification of documents, as respondent
no.1 is satisfied about it, work order has been issued to
respondent no.2.
6.
We have heard the respective counsel. We find that
the requirement of clause no.17 is not in dispute. If the plea or
defence of withdrawal of objection raised by the petitioner to
participation of respondent no.2 is to be accepted, the said
withdrawal is on 04.07.2014. However, record show that on
20.10.2014, the respondent no.1 has sent a communication to
the committee appointed by it to expedite the process of
verifying the entitlement of eligibility of respondent no.2. This
communication mentions the first letter by which the
Committee was approached on 02.09.2014. If on 04.07.2014
itself petitioner has withdrawn his grievance, and given no
objection for allotting work to respondent no.2, there was no
need to appoint any such Committee or then, to call upon that
Judgment. wp5958.15
Committee to expedite its report.
7. In any case, if such an objection is raised, the
respondent no.1 is duty bound to look into it independently.
Perusal of the report submitted by the 4 responsible officers of
respondent no.1 shows a conclusion at page no.4 that
respondent no.2 has not completed any such work. On next
page, other work completed on plot no.2 of CTSO No.3/A, RSG
22 and 24, Sector 8, Charcop Kandiwali (West) Mumbai has
been mentioned. The area of work is reported as 1647.68. It is
not very clear, whether it is square feet or square meter.
Similarly, thereafter it is added that this work is standing in the
name of 'Prime Civil Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.' Thus, credit for
this work cannot be given to respondent no.2 only on the basis
of this report.
8. Having obtained this report, it was incumbent on the
part of respondent no.1 to produce before this Court some
material to show that the credit for that work could have been
Judgment. wp5958.15
given to respondent no.2 in view of the subsequent verification
undertaken by it, however, no such material is being pressed
into service.
9. Apart from this, it is important to note that earnest
money deposited by all participants, was returned to them on
01.04.2014 itself. In this situation, return of earnest money
deposit, report of enquiry mentioned supra, all militate with the
story that the petitioner has withdrawn his complaint against
the respondent no.2. Even if it is presumed that the petitioner
had withdrawn the said complaint, that does not absolve the
respondent no.2 from its responsibility of satisfying itself about
said eligibility.
10. We therefore, find the entire exercise undertaken
and completed by respondent no.1 invalid and unsustainable.
11. During hearing we found that the time for
completion of the project is 18 months. According to the
Judgment. wp5958.15
respondent no.1, period of 18 months starts only after building
plan is sanctioned by the Planning Authority and it is yet to be
sanctioned. Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for petitioner disputes
this. In the light of the finding reached above, we are not
inclined to pronounce upon this aspect of time limit.
12.
Accordingly, we quash and set aside the work order
issued to respondent no.2. Writ Petition is partly allowed.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
