M/S. R. K. Sawant Through ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7056 Bom

                                                                                   wp-10719-2016



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                   
                              WRIT PETITION NO.10719 OF 2016




                                                           
               M/s. R.K. Sawant,
               Civil Engineers and Contractors                      ...Petitioner
                      vs.




                                                          
               State of Maharashtra and Another                     ...Respondents

    Mr. Yogendra Singh i/b. Auris Legal, for the Petitioner.
    Mr. Kirit J. Hakani a/w. Ms. Reena Rana, for Respondent No. 2.




                                               
    Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for Respondent No. 1 -State.
                                      
                       ORDER RESERVED ON    :  6th DECEMBER, 2016
                       ORDER PRONOUNCED ON  :  8th  DECEMBER, 2016
                                     
                                CORAM       : SHANTANU KEMKAR &
                                              PRAKASH NAIK, JJ.

ORDER: (Per Shantanu Kemkar, J.)

. The Petitioner claims to be a Government approved

Contractor engaged in the business of civil engineering and

construction work for the Government agencies.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that in the e-tender process

for the construction of "Proposed 'D' Type Building (Fruits and

Vegetables Market) Main Market Yard initiated by the K.A.P.M.C.,

Kalyan (Respondent No. 2), the Petitioner submitted his bid. After

considering the bids received in response to e-tender process, the

Vishal 1/4

wp-10719-2016

Market Committee took a decision informing the Petitioner vide letter

dated 1st September, 2016 that the Committee has decided to reject

all the bids and decided to re-invit the tender for the work in

question. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 1 st September, 2016

passed by the Market Committee, the Petitioner filed this Petition.

3. On 21st September, 2016 while issuing notice to

Respondents, the interim order was passed against Respondent No. 2

Committee restraining them from proceeding further in pursuance to

the e-tender Notice, the direction was also issued that the Committee

shall not award tender to any third party.

4. On being noticed, the second Respondent has raised a

preliminary objection that in view of Section 52 (B) of the

Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and

Regulation Act), 1963, (for short "the Act") the Petitioner has an

efficacious alternate remedy of appeal against the impugned decision

dated 1st September, 2016 taken by Respondent No. 2 - Committee. In

the circumstances, according to the Respondent No. 2 - Committee,

this Petition may not be entertained on account of availability of

Vishal 2/4

wp-10719-2016

alternate efficacious remedy, against the impugned order of the

Committee before the Director.

5. In reply to the aforesaid preliminary objection, the

Petitioner submits that since the action of Respondent No. 2 -

Committee is arbitrary the Petitioner has rightly approached this

Court through this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. He also submits that in case this Court comes to a conclusion

that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy, the interim protection

granted by this Court may be continued for some time enabling the

Petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority and seek interim order.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and

having gone through the Section 52 (B) of the Act, we are of the view

that against the impugned order/decision, the Petitioner is having

alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal where the Petitioner can

raise all the grounds as may be available to him. In the circumstances,

without going into the merits of the matter, we dispose of this Petition

with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Appellate authority for

redressal of his grievance.

    Vishal                                                                                    3/4




                                                                                        wp-10719-2016

7. In case the Petitioner files an Appeal before the Appellate

Authority on or before 17th December, 2016 the same shall not be

dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of limitation.

8. The interim order passed earlier shall continue for a

period of three weeks enabling the Petitioner to seek appropriate

order from the Appellate Authority.

9. While considering and deciding the Appeal or prayer for

interim relief of the Petitioner, the Appellate Authority shall not be

influenced by the interim order passed by this Court and shall decide

the matter on its own merits in accordance with law as expeditiously

as possible.

10. With the aforesaid liberty, observation and direction, the

Petition is disposed of.

               (PRAKASH NAIK, J.)                          (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)




    Vishal                                                                                      4/4