Bombay High Court
Abdul Raheman Abdul Majid Rijwani And ... vs The State Of Maha., Thr. Prin. ... on 20 September, 2025
Author: Mukulika Shrikant Jawalkar
Bench: Mukulika Shrikant Jawalkar
1 wp 5562.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5562 OF 2025
[Abdul Raheman Abdul Majid Rijwani and ors. vs. The State of
Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Public Works Department
and ors.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------ - - -
Mr. Bhupesh Patel, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. S. A. Ashirgade, Addl. G.P. for the State
CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE AND
SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, JJ.
DATED : 20-09-2025.
Heard.
The contention is that in terms of Government
Resolution (G.R.) dated 19-10-2011 read with 5-4-2023,
respondent nos. 2 and 3 were duty bound to distribute the
work in the ratio of 26:40:34. According to petitioners -
unemployed engineers, 26% was to be reserved for labour co-
operative societies, 40% for unemployed engineers and 34% for
regular contractors. In the present case, the tender floated is
reserved only for labour cooperative society.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since
the other two categories have been omitted, the petitioners
will be deprived from submitting their bids.
We have gone through the G.Rs. The policy appears
to be to execute various works through three different sources,
one is labour cooperative societies, second is unemployed
engineers and third is regular contractors. According to policy,
26% work should be given to labour cooperative societies, 40%
work should be given to the unemployed engineers and rest of
the work should be given to the regular contractors. In fact a
2 wp 5562.2025
committee is constituted to categorize such work. We do not
find from the policy that such ratio is to be adopted while
publishing tender for each work. The reason being, if there is
only one work, it cannot be given in the percentage as
envisaged in the G.R. Similarly, if there are more than one
work, it will be difficult to bifurcate those works in the ratio,
either in the form of numbers or in the form of costs of tenders.
In the light of above, we called upon the petitioners'
counsel to place before us as to how the works under question
could be distributed in terms of the policy of the Government.
The counsel for the petitioners submits that such distribution is
practically not possible. His argument, however, is that since
two other categories have been omitted, the notice of works is
illegal.
Learned Additional Government Pleader submits that
the policy is executed so that all the categories get the work as
envisaged in the policy. He submits that in a given case e-
tender is published only for unemployed engineers. He further
submits that the works are allotted to the unemployed
engineers by the method of draw as well. That being so, we do
not find any merit in the petition.
However, counsel for the petitioners has invited our
attention to the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Jalgaon District Majoor Kamgar
Cooperative Societies Federation Ltd. Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and anr. in Writ Petition No. 4634/2021 dated 20-
10-2022 to contend that the ratio as envisaged in G.Rs is to be
employed for each tender.
Issue notice, returnable in three weeks.
3 wp 5562.2025
We are, however, not inclined to grant interim relief in
terms of what we are noted in the body of order. Interim relief
is accordingly refused.
Learned Additional Government Pleader waives
service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 4.
(S. S. THOMBRE, J.) (A. L. PANSARE, J.)
wasnik
Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/09/2025 16:52:07
