Bombay High Court
Shri Devendra Punjabrao Godbole vs State Of Maha. Through Chief ... on 24 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
pil116.16 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 116 OF 2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 23 OF 2018
AND
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 1 OF 2018
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 116 OF 2016
Shri Devendra Punjabrao Godbole,
aged about 39 years, occupation -
Social Worker, r/o Mouda, Tq.
Mouda, District - Nagpur.
Mob. No. 9960065644
E-mail : [email protected]
Annual Income : Rs.4,00,000/-. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
through its Chief Secretary,
Planning Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
2. State of Maharashtra
through its Chief Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
3. State of Maharashtra
through its Chief Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri U.K. Bisen, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S.M. Ukey, Additional GP for the respondents.
.....
WRIT PETITION NO. 23 OF 2018
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 01:03:01 :::
pil116.16 2
Shri Rahul s/o Shivaji Maknikar,
aged about 39 years, occupation -
Agriculturrist & Corporation,
r/o Laxmi Colony, Old Ausa Road,
Latur, Tq. & District - Latur.
2. Vitthal s/o Annarao Hajgude,
aged 49 years, occupation -
Business & Agriculturist,
r/o 122/A, Shrinagar Karyakari
Abhiyanta Parisar, Latur,
Tq. & District - Latur. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
through its Chief Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Principal Secretary,
Planning Department,
State of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri Biradkar R.D., Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri S.M. Ukey, Additional GP for the respondents.
.....
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 1 OF 2018
Maharashtra Engineers Association,
having Registration No. NSK-781,
through its General Secretary
Sanjay Sadashiv Shinde, aged 45
years, occupation - Business, r/o
Janta Nagar, Galli No. 7, West
Sangamner, District - Ahmednagar.
Mob. No. 9422224450.
PAN No. BDMPS3631K. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 01:03:01 :::
pil116.16 3
through Department of General
Administration, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Principal Secretary,
General Administration,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
3. Principal Secretary,
Planning Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri Palodkar Devdatt P, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S.M. Ukey, Additional GP for the respondents.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
JANUARY 24, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Looking to the nature of controversy, we have heard
the matters finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable
forthwith by consent of Shri U.K. Bisen, Shri Biradkar R.D. and
Shri Palodkar Devdatt P., learned counsel for the petitioners in
respective petitions and Shri S.M. Ukey, learned Additional GP for
the respondents - Government authorities.
2. The challenge is to para 3 of Government Resolution
dated 12.07.2016, relaxing condition of e-auction.
3. The reasons pressed for deviating from e-tender while
allotting works under MLA fund up to Rs.10 lakh cannot be said to
be valid. If there is urgency and no response, e-tender process itself
provides for alternatives. The e-tender process has been initiated to
instill transparency in the entire exercise. The affidavit on behalf of
the respondents shows that earlier works up to Rs. Three lakh were
exempted from the condition of e-tender. Now that limit has been
raised to Rs. Ten lakh only for works to be completed out of MLA
funds. It is further mentioned that in some cases even after fifth
call, there was no response. These details are placed because of
orders of this Court dated 09.03.2017.
4. The urgency of a work or then any other exigency will
not justify a separate treatment only because MLA funds are to be
spent to meet it. All emergent demands can be met with by the
respondents by awarding the work in transparent manner only.
They also may have contractors on their panel for repairs and
maintenance works. It is not their case that MLA funds are spent on
only urgent needs.
5. We, therefore, find that no exception can be made in
works up to Rs. Ten lakh, only because expenses are to be
appropriated towards MLA grants. Normal rule applicable to all
tenders above Rs. Three lakh i.e. of e-tender must also apply in such
matters. Even in e-tender, the respondents can specify suitable
terms to meet the exigency.
6. At Aurangabad, this Court in Writ Petition No. 7954 of
2016 (before us today) on 16.03.2017 granted stay of impugned
communication and thereafter State Government has on 21.03.2017
directed all departments and authorities to adopt to e-auction only
even for works between Rs. Three lakh to Rs. Ten lakh.
7. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to abide by said
process even in works to be completed through MLA fund above Rs.
Three lakh.
8. In this situation, we partly allow these matters by
quashing paragraph 3 of Government Resolution dated 12.07.2016.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
