Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bhupendra Govindrao Jadhav, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to decide his objection dated 04.09.2023 regarding the non-application of 10% increase on basic rates under the State Scheduled Rates (SSR) for hilly areas in E-tender works bearing Nos.17, 18 and 22. The petitioner participated in the short period E-tender notices issued by the Public Works Department. He contended that the Government Resolution dated 18.01.2010 identified Tahsil Shirpur and Sakri of Dhule district as hilly areas, and the SSR mandates a 10% addition on basic rates for such areas. However, the authorities failed to undertake rate analysis and apply the 10% increase while determining the approximate value of works. The petitioner raised an objection on 04.09.2023, but the authorities did not decide it. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the petitioner has a right to have his objection considered by the authorities. The court directed the respondents to decide the objection within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Mandamus - Consideration of Objection - Government Resolution dated 18.01.2010 - The petitioner participated in E-tender notices and raised an objection that the authorities failed to apply the 10% increase on basic rates as per State Scheduled Rates for hilly areas. The court directed the respondents to decide the objection within four weeks, as the petitioner has a right to have his objection considered. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent authorities are bound to consider the petitioner's objection dated 04.09.2023 regarding the non-application of 10% increase on basic rates under State Scheduled Rates for hilly areas in E-tender works bearing Nos.17, 18 and 22.
Final Decision
The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the petitioner's objection dated 04.09.2023 within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Mandamus
- State Scheduled Rates
- Hilly Area Development Programme
- Government Resolution dated 18.01.2010
- Rate Analysis
- Tender Process
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (02) 98
WRIT PETITION NO.11597 OF 2023
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, S.G. Chapalgaonkar
Mr. S.S. Deshmukh for petitioner, Mr. V.M. Jaware, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 5
Bhupendra Govindrao Jadhav
The State of Maharashtra, The Secretary, Public Works Department, Chief Engineer, Public Works Region, Nashik, Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Circle, Dhule, Executive Engineer, Public Works (North) Division, Dhule
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondent authorities to decide the petitioner's objection regarding non-application of 10% increase on basic rates under State Scheduled Rates for hilly areas in E-tender works.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks direction to respondent authorities to decide his objection dated 04.09.2023 and to act in conformity with State Scheduled Rates by applying 10% increase on basic rates for hilly areas in E-tender works bearing Nos.17, 18 and 22.
Filing Reason
The petitioner participated in E-tender notices but the authorities failed to apply the 10% increase on basic rates as per State Scheduled Rates for hilly areas, and did not decide his objection.
Issues
Whether the respondent authorities are bound to consider the petitioner's objection dated 04.09.2023 regarding the non-application of 10% increase on basic rates under State Scheduled Rates for hilly areas in E-tender works bearing Nos.17, 18 and 22.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Government Resolution dated 18.01.2010 identifies Tahsil Shirpur and Sakri as hilly areas, and the State Scheduled Rates mandate a 10% addition on basic rates for such areas, but the authorities failed to apply it.
Respondents argued that the petitioner has no right to insist on a particular rate and the authorities have discretion in determining rates.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the petitioner has a right to have his objection considered by the authorities, and a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct the authorities to decide the objection in accordance with law.
Judgment Excerpts
Present petition has been filed for following reliefs : A) By issuance of the writ of mandamus or writ or orders in the like nature it be directed to the respondent authorities to decide the objection raised by the petitioner on 04.09.2023 viz-a-vis dated 07.09.2023 forthwith; and for that purpose issue necessary directions.
The facts giving rise to the petition are that the petitioner has participated in relation to the Short Period E-tender notice bearing E-tender notice Nos.17, 18 and 22.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, on an unspecified date. The court reserved judgment on 08.02.2024 and pronounced it on 28.02.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
