Bombay High Court
Ramesh Annaso Todkar vs State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 13 February, 2023
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, M. M. Sathaye
18 wp 430-23=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 430 OF 2023
Ramesh Annaso Todkar ..Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra, through
the Chief Secretary and Ors. ..Respondents
SNEHA ----
NITIN Mr. S.S. Patwardhan i/b Ms. Mrinal Shelar for the Petitioner.
CHAVAN
Digitally signed
Mr. R.S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondents/State.
by SNEHA NITIN
CHAVAN
Date: 2023.02.16
----
13:50:03 +0530
CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA, AND
M.M.SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 13th FEBRUARY 2023
P.C.
. Rule. Learned AGP waives service for the
Respondent/State. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the Petitioner has impugned the order dated 20.07.2022
issued by Respondent No.1 thereby suspending all the
development activities initiated by its predecessors, officers
including that of the Petitioner.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that various contracts are
awarded to the Petitioner as mentioned in the Writ Petition after
obtaining sanction under Article 203 and 204 of the Constitution
of India. The Budget Memorandum was presented under the
said legislature under Article 202(1) of the Constitution of India.
Sneha Chavan page 1 of 3
18 wp 430-23=.doc
The work order was issued in favour of the Petitioner and in
respect of work which was included in the Budget Memorandum
for the year 2022-2023, which would lapse on 31.03.2023.
4. The Respondents however issued a communication dated
20.07.2022 suspending these works without any basis.
5. Mr. Parwardhan, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied
upon ad-interim order passed by this Court on 28.11.2022 in
Writ Petition No. 9744 of 2022 in the case of Belewadi Village
Panchayat v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors ., and order dated
09.11.2022 passed by the Division Bench of Aurangabad Bench
in Writ Petition No. 9421 of 2022 in the case of Pooja Kalyan
Sapate v/s. State of Maharashtra and also judgment of the
Supreme Court in State of Haryana v/s State of Punjab, 2002
AIR(SC) 685. He also placed reliance on the judgment delivered
by Aurangabad Bench on 23.01.2023 in Writ Petition No. 10141
of 2022 in case of Jayashree Nilesh Pawde and Ors. v/s. The State
of Maharashtra and ors. and submitted that in similar
circumstances and after considering the stand taken by the State
Government in the Affidavit-in-Reply that in certain cases the
suspension was withdrawn, this Court has quashed and set aside
the impugned communication dated 20.07.2022.
6. Mr. Pawar, learned AGP for the State on the other hand
relied upon the averments made in the Affidavit-in-Reply
notarised on 04.02.2023 and in particular paragraphs 4 to 6 in
Sneha Chavan page 2 of 3
18 wp 430-23=.doc
support of his contention that wherever it was found necessary
and considering the requirement and necessity of work, in respect
of certain works, the stay order dated 23.07.2022 has been
withdrawn. Similar arguments were made before Aurangabad
Bench, which are rejected. In our view, the view taken by
Aurangabad Bench in case of Jayashree Nilesh Pawde (supra)
would apply to this case also.
7. The learned AGP could not point out as to why about the
work order issued to the Petitioner, the suspension order cannot
be withdrawn. The Authority cannot be allowed to pick and
choose the contracts for withdrawal of stay and to maintain stay
in respect of the other projects though all the projects are part of
the same budget issued by the Government which would lapse on
31.03.2023.
8. We are not inclined to accept the stand taken by the State
Government in the Affidavit-in-Reply and the stand is rejected.
9. We, accordingly, pass following order:
Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and
(b). Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
M.M.SATHAYE, J. R.D.DHANUKA, J.
Sneha Chavan page 3 of 3
