Bombay High Court
M/S Garje Steel Industries, Latur vs Executive Director, Godavari ... on 6 May, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 WP1140.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1140 OF 2015
Manisha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Company registered under
Companies Act, 1956, Through,
Managing Director,
Pradeep S/o Bhanudasrao Chavan,
R/o. : Saraswati Bhuwan Colony,
Aurangabad (Maharashtra) .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
2. Chief Engineer and Chief Adminitrator,
Command Area Development Water
Resources, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
3. Superintending Engineer,
Jayakwadi Project Circle,
Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
4. Executive Engineer,
Nandur Madhmeshwar Kalva Division No. 2,
Vaijapur, Headquarter Wadigodri,
Tq. : Ambad, Dist. : Jalna
5. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Recourses,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
6. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
2 WP1140.15
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Shyam C. Arora, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 , 3 and 4.
Shri Alok Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 5.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2959 OF 2015
M/s. Gagan Construction Co. and
M/s. Garje Steel Industries Latur (Joint Venture)
Through CEO & Authorized Signatory,
Ritesh S/o Ratanlal Mahindrakar,
Plot No. B-30, M. I. D. C. Area, Latur,
Dist. : Latur .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
2. Executive Engineer,
Lower Terna Canal Division No. 2,
Latur, Dist. : Latur
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Recourses,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
4. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Ruturaj C. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3.
3 WP1140.15
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2960 OF 2015
M/s. Garje Steel Industries Latur,
Through CEO & Authorized Signatory,
Ritesh S/o Ratanlal Mahindrakar,
Plot No. B-30, M. I. D. C. Area, Latur,
Dist. : Latur .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
2. Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division,
Parbhani
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Recourses,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
4. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Shyam C. Arora, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 4.
4 WP1140.15
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 591 OF 2015
Manisha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,
Company registered under Companies Act,
1956 through, Managing Director,
Pradeep S/o Bhanudasrao Chavan,
R/o. : Saraswati Bhuwan Colony,
Aurangabad (Maharashtra) .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
2. Chief Engineer and Chief Administrator,
Command Area Development Water
Resources, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
3. Superintending Engineer,
Jayakwadi Project Circle,
Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
4. The Executive Engineer,
Majalgaon Project Division,
Kesapuri Camp, Majalgaon, Dist. : Beed
5. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Recourses,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
6. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Shyam C. Arora, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
5 WP1140.15
Shri Alok M. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 5.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 603 OF 2015
Precision Infratech Ltd.,
Company registered under
Companies Act, 1956 through,
Managing Director,
Bhaskar S/o. Pranlal K. Vibhakar,
R/o. : 7/C-D, Suryarath, Panchawati,
Ellishbridge, Ahmedabad (Gujrath) .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Tapi Irrigation Development
Corporation, Jalgaon, Dist. : Jalgaon
2. Chief Engineer,
Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation,
Jalgaon, Dist. : Jalgaon
3. Superintending Engineer,
Nashik Irrigation Project Circle,
Dhule, Dist. : Dhule
4. Executive Engineer,
Dhule Medium Project Division No. 1,
Dhule, Dist. : Dhule
5. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Resources,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
6. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
6 WP1140.15
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2961 OF 2015
M/s. Garje Steel Industries Latur,
Through CEO & Authorized Signatory,
Ritesh S/o Ratanlal Mahindrakar,
Plot No. B-30, M. I. D. C. Area, Latur,
Dist. : Latur .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
2. Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division,,
Latur, Dist. : Latur
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Recourses,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
4. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
7 WP1140.15
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Ruturaj C. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Alok M. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2983 OF 2015
M/s. Prem Sai Constructions &
M/s. Garje Steel Industries Ltd. Latur (Joint Venture),
Through CEO & Authorized Signatory,
Ritesh S/o. Ratanlal Mahindrakar,
Plot No. B-30, M. I. D. C. Area, Latur,
Dist. : Latur .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
2. Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division,
Parbhani, Dist. : Parbhani
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Recourses,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
4. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Shyam C. Arora and Alok M. Sharma, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
8 WP1140.15
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2984 OF 2015
M/s. Sharda Constructions, Nanded &
Garje Steel Industries Ltd. Latur (Joint Venture),
Through CEO & Authorized Signatory,
Ritesh S/o. Ratanlal Mahindrakar,
Plot No. B-30, M. I. D. C. Area, Latur,
Dist. : Latur ig .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
2. Executive Engineer,
Nanded Minor Irrigation Division,
Nanded, Dist. : Nanded
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Recourses,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
4. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Alok M. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 4.
9 WP1140.15
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3011 OF 2015
M/s. Shri Satya Saibaba Constructions,
Latur, a partnership firm, Mane Chambers,
Opp. S. T. Depot., Ausa Road,
Shivaji Chowk Latur, Through authorized
Signatory,
Ritesh S/o. Ratanlal Mahindrakar .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
2. Executive Engineer,
Lower Terna Canal Division No. 2,
Latur, Dist. : Latur
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Recourses,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
4. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Ruturaj C. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4318 OF 2015
10 WP1140.15
M/s. Pooja Construction, Nanded,
C/o. Shivalaya Ambekar Nagar,
Nanded, Dist. : Nanded,
Through authorized signatory,
Ganpati S/o. Baliram Morge
(Managing Director) .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
2.
Executive Engineer,
Lower Terna Cannel Division No. 2,
Latur, Dist. : Latur
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Resources,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
4. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Shyam C. Arora, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4319 OF 2015
M/s. Premsai Construction Company,
22, "Kanchanjugh" Appartment, Aundh,
Pune, Dist. : Pune,
Through, Partner and authorized signatory,
11 WP1140.15
Rajendra S/o. Rangnath Patil .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
2. Executive Engineer,
Lower Terna Cannel Division No. 2,
Latur, Dist. : Latur
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Resources,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
4. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Ruturaj C. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.
Shri Alok M. Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4320 OF 2015
M/s. Sharda Constructions and
Precision Technofab Engineering Ltd.,
(Joint Venture), Plot No. 80, Rudraksha
Building, Bhagyanagar, Nanded,
Dist. : Nanded, Through authorized signatory,
Shivshankar S/o. Baliram Chakurkar .. Petitioner
Versus
12 WP1140.15
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
2. Executive Engineer,
Vishnupuri Project Division No. 1,
Lendi Project Division,
Nanded, Dist. : Nanded
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Resources,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
4. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Sudhir G. Bhalerao, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Alok M. Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4402 OF 2015
M/s. Piyush Enterprises,
81, Jaivishwabharti Colony, Garkheda Road,
Auranbad, Through authorized signatory,
Gajendra S/o. Krushnarao Chaudhari (Manager)
.. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
13 WP1140.15
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
2. Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No. 1,
Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Resources,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
4. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Respondent No. 1 served.
Shri Sudhir G. Bhalerao, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4435 OF 2015
M/s. Piyush Enterprises,
81, Jaivishwabharti Colony, Garkheda Road,
Auranbad, Through authorized signatory,
Gajendra S/o. Krushnarao Chaudhari (Manager)
.. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
2. Executive Engineer,
14 WP1140.15
Minor Irrigation Division No. 1,
Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Resources,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
4. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Sudhir G. Bhalerao, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4436 OF 2015
Soma Enterprise Ltd.,
Through General Manger and authorized signatory,
Vishwambar Dayal Sharma,
"Soma Hights", 3, Siddhivinayak Society,
Karve Road, Pune-36 .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
2. The Suprintending Engineer,
Nanded Irrigation Circle, Sinchan Bhavan,
Nanded
15 WP1140.15
3. Executive Engineer,
Vishnupury Project Division No. 2,
Nanded
4. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Recourses,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
5. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 served.
Shri Ruturaj C. Patil and Alok Sharma, Advocate for the
Respondent No. 3.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 4.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 5.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4439 OF 2015
M/s. Sharda Constructions and
Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Nanded,
Plot No. 80, Rudraksha Building,
Bhagyanagar,
Nanded, Dist. : Nanded,
Through authorized signatory,
Ganpati S/o. Baliram Morge
(Managing Director) .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
16 WP1140.15
2. Executive Engineer,
Upper Painganga Project Division No. 4,
Akhada Balapur, Tq. : Kalamnuri,
Dist. : Hingoli
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Resources,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
4. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Respondent No. 1 served.
Shri Ruturaj C. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4440 OF 2015
M/s. Mule Brothers Ltd. and
Shreehari Associates Pvt. Ltd. (Joint Venture),
Through Authorized Signatory,
Satish S/o. Madhukar Dalal,
General Manager (Technical),
Tapadiya Terraces, Adalat Road,
Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
17 WP1140.15
2. Executive Engineer,
Nandur Madhmeshwar Canal Division No. 2,
Vaijapur Head Office, Wadigordi,
Tq. : Ambad, Dist. : Jalna
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Recourses,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
4. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Respondent No. 1 served.
Shri Sudhir G. Bhalerao, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4441 OF 2015
Soma Enterprise Ltd.,
Through General Manager and authorized
signatory, Vishwambar Dayal Sharma,
"Soma Hights", 3, Siddhivinayak Society,
Karve Road, Pune - 36 .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
2. The Suprintending Engineer,
Nanded Irrigation Circle, Sinchan Bhavan,
18 WP1140.15
Nanded
3. Executive Engineer,
Vishnupury Project Division No. 2,
Nanded
4. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Recourses,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
5. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Shyam C. Arora, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 4.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 5.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4552 OF 2015
M/s. Sharda Constructions and
Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Nanded,
Plot No. 80, Rudraksha Building,
Bhagyanagar,
Nanded, Dist. : Nanded,
Through authorized signatory,
Ganpati S/o. Baliram Morge
(Managing Director) .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad
19 WP1140.15
2. The Executive Engineer,
Vishnupury Project Division No. 2,
Nanded, Dist. : Nanded
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Water Resourses,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
4. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Respondent No. 1 served.
Shri Shyam C. Arora, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 3.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11632 OF 2014
Manisha Precision (J.V.)
Company regisered under Companies Act,
1956 through,
Managing Director,
Bhaskar S/o. Pranlal K. Vibhakar,
R/o. : 7/C-D, Suryarath, Panchawati,
Ellishbridge, Ahmedabad (Gujrath) .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Executive Director,
Tapi Irrigation Development
Corporation, Jalgaon, Dist. : Jalgaon
2. Chief Engineer,
Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation,
20 WP1140.15
Jalgaon, Dist. : Jalgaon
3. Superintending Engineer,
Nashik Irrigation Project Circle,
Dhule, Dist. : Dhule
4. Executive Engineer,
Dhule Medium Project Division No. 1,
Dhule, Dist. : Dhule
5. Senior Intelligence Officer,
DGCEI - Regional Unit Pune,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise and customs,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
Regional Unit, VI th Floor, Vohra Kothari Building,
1025, Sadashiv Peth, Pune - 411030 .. Respondents
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 served.
Smt. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 5.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
A. M. BADAR, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 26.02.2016
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 06.05.2016
JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are contractors.
The respondent invited sealed tenders in B-1 (percentage rate)
format for the construction work as detailed in the said tender
such as fabrication of gates etc. These petitioners had filled in
the tenders pursuant to the tender notice issued by the
Respondent / Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
21 WP1140.15
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as G. M. I. D. C.). All these
petitioners were successful bidders and were issued work
orders pursuant to the said tender.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that, the Respondent /
Corporation is deducting the amounts towards excise duty from
the running bills. The petitioners have sought declaration that
the deduction of the amounts towards the excise duty is illegal.
The respondent be directed to refund the amounts collected
pursuant thereto by the Respondent / Corporation.
3. Mr. Khandare, the learned counsel for the petitioners
strenuously contends that, the tenders were invited in B-1
(percentage rate) format. The petitioners were required to
quote their rates above or below the estimated cost for the
project. According to the learned counsel, Schedule - B to the
tender document enumerated in detail the description of
individual items of work and corresponding estimated rates for
the said items worked out by the department. The final
estimated project cost was put to the tender. The petitioners
have only to submit unconditional tender without any condition
of deviation.
4. The learned counsel submits that, excise duty is not
leviable on the work done by the petitioners. The Respondent /
Corporation did not have any authority to retain the amount on
the count that excise duty is payable. The learned counsel
submits that, the work of fabrication has been done on the site.
Because of the size of the said work it is not possible to
transport the said gates and other items. The work of the same
22 WP1140.15
was done on the site itself. The learned counsel submits that,
even as per Notification No. 3 of 2005 issued under Central
Excise Tariff Act, 1985 the goods fabricated on site of work
used in construction at such site Tariff Item No. 7308 excise
duty payable is nil. So also, the service tax is not payable on
works contracts in respect of Dams which are specifically
excluded under Section 65 (25) (B) of Central Excise Act. The
learned counsel further submits that, while submitting the bids
all inputs have been considered including Nil rate of excise
duty. The learned counsel submits that, under the contract all
Taxes, Duties, Cess etc. and payment thereof is the duty of the
contractor and the petitioners have cleared their liability. The
learned counsel submits that, while deducting the amounts no
notices were issued to the petitioners and upon enquiry the
petitioners were told that the Auditor has raised an objection
that while preparing estimated cost excise duty was considered
and therefore the contractors i.e. the petitioners have got
undue benefit, as such, the amounts are deducted. According
to the learned counsel, the deductions are unauthorized. The
contractors do not have any access to the costing done by the
Respondent / Corporation at the time of arriving at an
estimated cost while issuing tender. Annexure - A of the
tender lays down the description of the project, the details of
the work and estimated cost. The estimated cost is stated in
lumpsum. It does not specify calculation of excise duty
separately.
5. Mr. Alok Sharma, Mr. S. G. Bhalerao, Mr. R. C. Patil, Mr. S.
C. Arora, the learned counsels appearing for the G. M. I. D. C. in
all these petitions submit that, in the terms and conditions of
23 WP1140.15
the contract entered between the petitioners and respondents
at the time of issuance of work orders there is a provision that
all taxes including excise duty and service tax shall be paid by
the contractor and on submission of receipts of payments
against taxes paid to the Government by contractor said
amount would be payable to the contractor. According to the
learned counsels, Clause No. 55 of the tender clause
specifically quotes that the tender rates are inclusive of all
Taxes, Rates, Cess. In Clause 24 of special condition of contract
it is clearly mentioned that all local laws in force at the time of
entering into contract and those enacted thereafter shall be
binding on the contractor and he shall abide by the same. The
petitioners are aware of inclusion of excise duty and service tax
in the rate analysis of the items under extra item rate list
wherein rates are mutually agreed. The learned counsels
further submits that, the petitioners have fabricated the item
near the barrage site and not on the site. The contractors are
liable to pay excise duty.
6. The learned counsels further submits that, Pre - Tender
meeting has been conducted, queries are put by the
contractors and details are given to them. At that time also the
estimated cost and its details are provided and rate of excise
duty and service tax are specifically included under separate
heads which forms part of the estimated cost. According to the
learned counsels, the amounts have been rightly deducted and
the Auditor has rightly raised an objection.
7. The learned counsels further submits that, it is not that
work is as a turn key project or a lumpsum contract but work is
24 WP1140.15
allotted pursuant to B - 1 tender, upon a percentage above or
below the estimated cost and estimated cost includes excise
duty.
8. Mrs. Bharaswadkar, the learned counsel appearing for the
Excise Department strenuously contends that the items are
chargeable to excise duty. The proceedings are in progress and
the decision would be taken by the department about the
excisability of the items i.e. whether the said items are
excisable goods. ig The learned counsel submits that, even
otherwise as the amounts have been collected as part of excise
duty as per Section 11 (D) of the Central Excise Act more
particularly Sub-Section 1 (A) even if the goods are held to be
not excisable but a person collects the amount as representing
duty of excise on any goods such a person is liable to pay the
amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government
forthwith. The learned counsel on instructions submits that,
within six months the enquiry / proceedings would be
completed by the department and a finding would be given as
to whether the goods are excisable or not.
9. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsels for the respective parties.
10. As far as the question whether the items are excisable
goods or not would be determined by the department where
the proceedings are pending. It would not be within the ambit
and purview of this Court to give dictum upon the same.
25 WP1140.15
11. If, the department comes to the conclusion about the
goods being excisable, it would be for the petitioners /
contractors to pay the said amounts. We would restrict
ourselves to the question as to whether the respondents would
be entitled to deduct the amount towards the excise duty and
retain it with themselves from the running bills.
12. It is a matter of record that pursuant to the tender notice
issued by the Respondent / G. M. I. D. C. tenders in B-1
(percentage rate) format were tendered.
ig The same was
tendered at particular percentage above the estimated cost.
There is no doubt that Pre - Tender conference is normally held
for works costing above Rs. 50,00,000/-. All the works involved
herein are above Rs. 50,00,000/-. In the said Pre - Tender
conference the prospective tenderers have liberty to obtain
clarification regarding the work and tender conditions and can
also have an additional clarification. The petitioners have to
quote their offers in Envelop No. 2 of the tender in the format
of percentage below or above the estimated cost given in
Schedule - B, Part - I at appropriate place in B-1 format. The
amount of all items of Part I of Schedule - B with percentage (+
or - ) and the amount of Part II of Schedule - B will be totaled
and the same is considered as an offer of the tenderer. The
Annexure - 1 contains the estimated cost. In fact, the tender
quotes the particular percentage above or below the estimated
cost. Clause 24 lays down that, all import and excise duties,
sales tax, local panchayat tax and other taxes shall be borne by
the contractor and that shall be deemed to have been covered
by its quoted tender rates.
26 WP1140.15
13. As stated above, if, the Excise Department comes to the
conclusion that the items fall within the category of excise
goods subject to appeal or otherwise petitioners / contractors
would be liable to pay the same. Sub-Section 1(A) of Section
11(D) would apply only if a person has collected any amount
representing as a duty of excise on any goods which are wholly
exempted or chargeable to nil rate of duty then in that case he
is liable to pay forthwith the amount so collected to the credit
of the Central Government. In the present case, the petitioners
/ Contractors have no where represented at the time of quoting
the tender rates i.e. percentage above the estimated cost that
they would be charging any particular amount towards the
excise duty. The tenders were submitted with the total
estimated cost. The petitioners have quoted their offers as a
specific percentage above the estimated cost. The petitioners
have agreed to pay excise duty as well as tax and all other
taxes as would be applicable. However, it cannot be said that
the petitioners have collected or represented any amount
towards the payment of excise duty so as to attract Section 11-
D, 1 (A) of the Central Excise Act nor that would give right to
the G. M. I. D. C. to retain the said amounts. In any case the G.
M. I. D. C. is not entitled to retain the said amounts. If, the
Excise Department holds that the items are excisable goods the
petitioners will be liable to pay the excise duty to the Excise
Department. The petitioners have only submitted their offers
in the shape of percentage above estimated cost. It cannot be
said that they have collected the amounts representing the
Respondent / G. M. I. D. C. that the said amounts are to be paid
as the excise duty.
27 WP1140.15
14. In light of the above, it would be inappropriate for the
Respondent / G. M. I. D. C. to withhold the amounts on the
ground that a particular amounts are being paid towards the
excise duty separately.
15. The entire tender document does not even remotely
suggest that the petitioners have represented that the said
items are excisable and have quoted specific amount as a
excise duty over the said items. In light of the above, the
action of the G. M. I. D. C. in withholding and deducting
amounts from the running bills towards excise duty is
erroneous.
16. This Court had already restrained the Respondent / G. M.
I. D. C. from deducting the amounts towards excise duty by
way of interim order.
17. Considering the fact that the learned counsel for the
Excise Department has made a statement on instructions that
the department would complete its proceedings i.e. about
determining whether the items of the tender works were
excisable goods within six months, we pass the following order-
A] The Excise Department shall conclude their
proceedings within six (6) months as undertaken
by it.
B] The Respondent G. M. I. D. C. shall not retain
the amounts already deducted on the ground of
excise duty. They shall also not further deduct the
amounts from the running bills.
28 WP1140.15
C] In case Excise Department comes to the
conclusion that the items of the tender work are
excisable then subject to appeal or otherwise the
petitioners would be liable to pay the said amount
to the Excise Department.
18. The writ petitions are partly allowed, however, with no
orders as to costs.
[ A. M. BADAR, J. ]
ig [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
sam/Mar.16
