Bombay High Court
Dara Mohammad Jafar Mohammad And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 5 August, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
2966.2016WP+.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2966 OF 2016
1. Dara Mohammad Jafar Mohammad,
Age-57 years, Occupation-Agriculture &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Immamwada Taluka Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon.
2. Asif Mohammad Dara Mohammad
Age-38 years, Occu-Agriculture &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Immamwada, Raver, Tq.Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon
3. Pralhad s/o. Ramdas Mahajan,
Age-60 years, Occu-Agriculture &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Mahatma Phule Chowk Raver,
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
4. Sow. Shakuntala Ramesh Mahajan
Age-50 Years, Occu-household &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Swami Vivekanand Chowk, Raver,
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon.
5. Sow. Chhayabai Dnayeshwar Mahajan
Age-50 years, Occu-Household &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Near Datta Mandir Raver,
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
6. Hamidabi Ayyub Khan
Age-40 years, Occu-Household &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Immamwada Raver, Tq.Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon.
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:46:51 :::
2966.2016WP+.odt
2
7. Shabanabi Asif Mohmmad
Age-28 years, Occu-Agril. &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Immamwada Raver, Tq.Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon.
8. Gopal s/o. Ratnakar Birpan
Age-36 years, Occu-Agril &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Sambhaji Nagar, Raver, Tq.Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector,
Jalgaon
2. The Chief Officer,
Municipal Council, Raver,
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
3. Raver Municipal Council,
Raver through
Sow. Riya Shital Patil,
Age- 30 years, Occu-Service,
President, Municipal Council, Raver
R/o. Station Road, Raver,
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
4. Janhit Foundation
Through Sanjaykumar Thakur,
26/248, Plot No.834,
Kranti Chowk, Jalgaon
Dist. Jalgaon.
(Amended as per Court's order
dtd.12.04.2016) RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:46:51 :::
2966.2016WP+.odt
3
...
Mr.Sanket S.Kulkarni,
Advocate for
petitioners
Mrs.M.A.Deshpande, Addl.G.P. for Respondent
no.1.
Respondent nos.3 & 4 served.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2967 OF 2016
1. Dara Mohammad Jafar Mohammad,
Age-57 years, Occupation-Agriculture &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Immamwada Taluka Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon.
2. Asif Mohammad Dara Mohammad
Age-38 years, Occu-Agriculture &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Immamwada, Raver, Tq.Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon
3. Pralhad s/o. Ramdas Mahajan,
Age-60 years, Occu-Agriculture &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Mahatma Phule Chowk Raver,
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
4. Sow. Shakuntala Ramesh Mahajan
Age-50 Years, Occu-household &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Swami Vivekanand Chowk, Raver,
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon.
5. Sow. Chhayabai Dnayeshwar Mahajan
Age-50 years, Occu-Household &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Near Datta Mandir Raver,
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
6. Hamidabi Ayyub Khan
Age-40 years, Occu-Household &
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:46:51 :::
2966.2016WP+.odt
4
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Immamwada Raver, Tq.Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon.
7. Shabanabi Asif Mohmmad
Age-28 years, Occu-Agril. &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Immamwada Raver, Tq.Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon.
8. Gopal s/o. Ratnakar Birpan
Age- 36 years, Occu-Agril &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Sambhaji Nagar, Raver, Tq.Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector,
Jalgaon
2. The Chief Officer,
Municipal Council, Raver,
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
3. Raver Municipal Council,
Raver through
Sow. Riya Shital Patil,
Age- 30 years, Occu-Service,
President, Municipal Council, Raver
R/o. Station Road, Raver,
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
4. Ashok N. Sonawane
Age Major Occ:Business,
R/o. 30, Madhuban Colony,
Jalgaon Road, Jamner,
Tal.Jamner, Dist.Jalgaon
(Amended as per Court's order
dtd.12.04.2016) RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:46:51 :::
2966.2016WP+.odt
5
...
Mr.Sanket S.Kulkarni,
Advocate for
petitioners
Mrs.M.A.Deshpande, Addl.G.P. for Respondent
no.1.
Mr.M.M.Patil (Beedkar) Advocate for
respondent no.2
Mr.Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Advocate for
respondent no.4.
Respondent no.3 served.
...
ig WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2968 OF 2016
1. Dara Mohammad Jafar Mohammad,
Age-57 years, Occupation-Agriculture &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Immamwada Taluka Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon.
2. Asif Mohammad Dara Mohammad
Age-38 years, Occu-Agriculture &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Immamwada, Raver, Tq.Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon
3. Pralhad s/o. Ramdas Mahajan,
Age-60 years, Occu-Agriculture &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Mahatma Phule Chowk Raver,
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
4. Sow. Shakuntala Ramesh Mahajan
Age-50 Years, Occu-household &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Swami Vivekanand Chowk, Raver,
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon.
5. Sow. Chhayabai Dnayeshwar Mahajan
Age-50 years, Occu-Household &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:46:51 :::
2966.2016WP+.odt
6
R/o. Near Datta Mandir Raver,
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
6. Hamidabi Ayyub Khan
Age-40 years, Occu-Household &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Immamwada Raver, Tq.Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon.
7. Shabanabi Asif Mohmmad
Age-28 years, Occu-Agril. &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Immamwada Raver, Tq.Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon.
8. Gopal s/o. Ratnakar Birpan
Age- 36 years, Occu-Agril &
Corporator, Municipal Council Raver,
R/o. Sambhaji Nagar, Raver, Tq.Raver,
Dist. Jalgaon. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector,
Jalgaon
2. The Chief Officer,
Municipal Council, Raver,
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
3. Raver Municipal Council,
Raver through
Sow. Riya Shital Patil,
Age- 30 years, Occu-Service,
President, Municipal Council, Raver
R/o. Station Road, Raver,
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
4. Jitendra Jagannath Patil
Age: Major, Occ:Business,
At & Post Khirdi (Khund),
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:46:51 :::
2966.2016WP+.odt
7
Tal.Raver, Dist. Jalgaon 425 507.
(Amended as per Court's order
dtd.12.04.2016) RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Sanket S.Kulkarni,
Advocate for
petitioners
Mrs.M.A.Deshpande, Addl.G.P. for Respondent
no.1.
Mr.M.M.Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for
respondent no.2.
Mr.Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Advocate for
respondent no.4.
Respondent no.3 served.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
P.R.BORA,JJ.
Reserved on : 28.07.2016
Pronounced on : 05.08.2016
JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
1. Heard.
2. These Petitions take exception to
the orders dated 06.02.2016 and 02.02.2016
passed by the Collector, Jalgaon, bearing
Case No. PLIKA-1/ KAVI/SR-4/2016, case No.
PLIKA-1 / KAVI /SR-2/2016 and case Nos.
PLIKA-1/KAVI/SR-3/2016 respectively, under
Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal
2966.2016WP+.odt
Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial
Townships Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act of
1965'), and further seeks directions to
respondent no.3 to accept the suggestion for
re-tender given by passing Resolution nos.7,
5 and 4 respectively, in the General Body
Meeting of the Municipal Council, Raver,
District Jalgaon, held on 17.12.2015.
3. The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners submits that the District
Collector, in pursuance of the letter written
by respondent no.2 dated 08.09.2015, issued
an order to respondent no.2 Chief Officer,
Municipal Council, Raver, thereby granting
the permission for construction of work of
public toilets at three places within the
jurisdiction of Municipal Council, Raver, on
certain conditions. As per the order passed
by the District Collector, respondent no.2
issued a letter to the Editor of 'Dainik
Divya Marathi' on 23.09.2015 for publication
2966.2016WP+.odt
of tender notice in the news paper, and
accordingly, the tender notice was published
in the news paper Dainik Divya Marathi, and
the tenders were invited for construction of
the aforesaid work. In response to the tender
notice, four persons have filed their
quotations for the tender work to construct
the work at serial no.1 which is mentioned in
the tender notice and out of them, the
quotations of respondent no.4 (in all three
Petitions) was 1% less of the total estimated
cost.
4. It is further submitted that
respondent no.3 President of Municipal
Council, Raver, by its notice dated
02.11.2015, called a general meeting of the
Municipal Council, Raver, on 17.11.2015. The
general body meeting was held on the said
date at about 1.00 p.m. It was decided in
the said meeting that the tenders which are
received of respondent no.4 are little less
2966.2016WP+.odt
than the estimated cost and hence it was
decided to call respondent no.4 for
negotiation in the interest of Municipal
Council. The said suggestions were put before
the Councillors and the appellants given
consent in favour of the suggestions, and the
7 councillors including respondent no.3
President casted their votes against the
suggestions given by the petitioners. Since
the suggestions given by the petitioners were
approved by majority, it was decided to call
respondent no.4 for negotiation. Accordingly,
notice was issued on 20.11.2015 to the
respondent no.4 for negotiation, and
accordingly, respondent no.4 appeared on
26.11.2015 and by the letter dated 26.11.2015
shown willingness to complete the work 1.02%
less than the estimated cost. Respondent no.
3, vide its notice dated 09.12.2015, called
general body meeting on 17.12.2015 for
discussion about the resolution no.15 of the
2966.2016WP+.odt
General Body Meeting dated 17.11.2015 along
with the noting of the meetings, and
accordingly, the general body meeting was
held on 17.12.2015 and in that meeting
discussion has taken place about Resolution
Nos.7, 5 and 4, which was already passed.
The petitioner nos.1, 5 and other
councillors did file applications to the
President of Municipal Council and requested
for calling the tender holders for
negotiations. Accordingly, on 26.11.2015 the
concerned tender holders were called,
however, they agreed for reduction of very
less amount than the estimated cost, and
hence, the petitioner no.1 and five others
suggested to re-tender the work, as the
financial condition of the Municipal Council
is weaker and hence re-tender be issued. The
said suggestion was opposed by the some of
the councillors and hence the President
decided to take voting on the said
2966.2016WP+.odt
suggestion. Accordingly 8 councillors out of
15 cast their votes in favour of suggestion
and 7 councillors including respondent no.3
President cast their votes against the
suggestion. Hence, respondent no.3 decided
to send suggestions made by the present
petitioners for further proceedings. The
general body meeting dated 17.12.2015
approved suggestion given by the petitioners
and the same was forwarded for further
sanction of the respondent no.1 i.e.
Collector and to respondent no.2 Chief
Officer by its letter dated 17.12.2015. It is
submitted that respondent Collector, by its
orders dated 06.02.2016 and 02.02.2016,
quashed and set aside the suggestion given by
the petitioners without assigning any
reasons. Being aggrieved by the said orders
passed by the Collector, the petitioners
preferred Appeals before the Divisional
Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.
2966.2016WP+.odt
However, the said Appeals also came to be
dismissed. Hence these Petitions.
5. The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners invited our attention to the
impugned orders passed by the Collector and
submits that while passing the impugned
orders not a single reason is assigned by the
Collector, thereby violating the mandate of
the provisions of Section 308 of the Act of
1965. Therefore, the learned counsel submits
that on this ground alone, the Petitions
deserve to be allowed. The learned counsel
further submits that the Commissioner,
without appreciating the legal contentions
raised by the petitioners, mechanically
confirmed the orders passed by the Collector.
6. On the other hand, the learned
counsel appearing for the respective
respondents submits that in pursuance of the
orders passed by the Collector, the tender
2966.2016WP+.odt
was given and the work of construction of
toilets has been completed, therefore, the
adjudication of these Petitions will be
exercised in futility and may be only for the
academic interest.
7. The learned AGP invited our
attention to the averments in the affidavit-
in-replies and submits that these Petitions
deserve to be dismissed.
8. The learned counsel appearing for
the other respondents submit that the
petitioners have not challenged the orders
passed by the Commissioner and in absence of
challenge to the said orders, the Petitions
cannot succeed since the orders passed by the
Collector have merged into the orders passed
by the Divisional Commissioner.
9. We have given careful considerations
to the rival submissions of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties. With their
2966.2016WP+.odt
able assistance, perused the pleadings in the
Petitions, grounds taken therein, annexures
thereto and the impugned orders passed by the
Collector and in particular the provisions of
Section 308 of the Act of 1965. It is true
that the Collector was supposed to give
reasons while passing the impugned orders in
consonance with the mandate of Section 308 of
the Act of 1965. However, the Collector has
not assigned any reason in the impugned
orders. The said orders were challenged
before the Commissioner by the petitioners
and the same have been confirmed by the
Commissioner. Admittedly, orders passed by
the Commissioner are not under challenge in
the present Petitions. However, considering
the subsequent events occurred after filing
these Petitions, and the fact that the work
of construction of toilets was alloted and
the same has been completed, and the entire
exercise of completion of tender work has
2966.2016WP+.odt
been complete, in our opinion, no purpose
will be served by setting aside the impugned
orders. Therefore, in view of the subsequent
events occurred after filing these Petitions,
and the entire tender work is over, leaving
open the question of law raised in these
Petitions, we decline to interfere in the
impugned orders, the Writ Petitions stand
disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
[P.R.BORA] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
