VISHAL ISHWAR KULTHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside the tender notices dated 30.3.2011 and 11.4.2011, as well as the General Body Resolution dated 5.5.2011, Resolution of Standing Committee dated 12.5.2011 and the Letter of Acceptance dated 12.5.2011 issued in favour of the respondent no. 4 as well as revocation of Work Order issued in favour of the respondent no. 4. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the grievance of the petitioner is in respect of tender notices dated 30.3.2011 and 14.4.2011 issued by the respondent no.2-Corporation whereby offers were invited for appointing Octroi and Escort Fees Collection Agent for Nashik Municipal Corporation for the financial year 2011-2012, on the ground that vide Government Resolution dated 19.4.2011 the respondent Corporation was required to fix upset price as per clause 1(b) of the said Government Resolution. It is submitted that as per the said clause, the upset price for financial year 2011-2012 ought to have been 15% more than the upset price which was fixed for the financial year i.e. 2011- 2012. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Government Resolution was binding on the Corporation in view of the provisions of Section 66A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. It is contended that the General Body of the Corporation vide Resolution dated 5.5.2011 has chosen not to apply the said criteria for the financial year 2011 2012. The counsel has submitted that last date of submission of tender was 26.4.2011 and the Government Resolution was issued on 19.4.2011 and, therefore, it was not only binding on the Corporation to follow the procedure in fixing the upset price as stated in the said Government Resolution, but it was incumbent on the Corporation to follow the said procedure. It is contended that the decision of the Corporation not to apply the said criteria in respect of the present tender process for financial year 2011-2012 is bad in law and has resulted in causing great loss to the exchequer.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner, however, has fairly stated that since the contract period is already over, the petitioner is only seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 State of Maharashtra to initiate disciplinary inquiry against the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the other officers/members who have willfully and deliberately refused to implement the Government Resolution dated 19.4.2011 which was binding on the Corporation. In order to substantiate his contention, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court dated 10.5.2012 rendered in Writ Petition No.3754 of 2012 [M/s. Monarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Ulhas Nagar Municipal Corporation & Anr. Similarly, reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in Subhash R. Acharya v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2007 6 BCR 100].