Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Sanjiv Manmohan Gupta, carrying on business as M/s. Global Advertisers, challenged the order dated 20th August 2021 allotting a hoarding site at CTS No.679 (Part) at Bandra, Mumbai, in favor of Respondent No. 5, Ganesh Shetty, carrying on business as M/s. Option Advertising Co., and the order dated 25th April 2022 rejecting the Petitioner's Review Application. The dispute centered on the allotment of a hoarding site on government land. The Petitioner contended that the allotment was made without following the prescribed procedure under Government Resolutions, which required inviting tenders and considering the Petitioner's prior rights. The Respondent No. 5 argued that the allotment was valid and that the Petitioner had no locus standi. The court analyzed the Government Resolutions and found that the allotment was made in violation of the procedure, as no tender was invited and the Petitioner's objections were not considered. The court also held that the Minister's rejection of the Review Application was arbitrary and failed to address the procedural irregularities. Consequently, the court quashed both the allotment order and the rejection of the Review Application, directing the State Government to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Allotment of Hoarding Sites - Government Resolutions - The court examined the legality of allotment of a hoarding site on government land without following the prescribed procedure under Government Resolutions. The court held that the allotment was made in violation of the procedure and was arbitrary. (Paras 1-16)
B) Natural Justice - Review Application - The court considered whether the Minister's rejection of the Petitioner's Review Application was proper. The court found that the Minister failed to consider the Petitioner's objections and the procedural irregularities. (Paras 17-25)
C) Government Contracts - Tender Process - The court emphasized the necessity of inviting tenders for allotment of hoarding sites to ensure transparency and equal opportunity. The court held that the allotment without tender was illegal. (Paras 26-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the allotment of a hoarding site to Respondent No. 5 by the State Government was legal and valid, and whether the rejection of the Petitioner's Review Application was justified.
Final Decision
The court quashed the order dated 20th August 2021 allotting the hoarding site to Respondent No.5 and the order dated 25th April 2022 rejecting the Petitioner's Review Application. The court directed the State Government to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Administrative Law
- Natural Justice
- Government Contracts
- Allotment of Hoarding Sites
- Tender Process
- Review Application
- Government Resolutions
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (10) 60
Writ Petition No.10300 OF 2022
Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh i/by Mr. Girish Kedia, Mr. Krushang Kedia, Mr. Manoj Agre for the Petitioners; Mr. Shailendra Kanetkar a/w Ms. Ketki Gadkari, Ms. Aishwarya Shinde for Respondent No.5; Mr. C. D. Mali, AGP for Respondent No.1
Sanjiv Manmohan Gupta (Carrying on business as M/s. Global Advertisers)
State of Maharashtra, The District Collector, Mumbai Suburbs, The Hon’ble Minister for State, Revenue & Forest Department, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Mr. Ganesh Shetty (Carrying on business as M/s. Option Advertising Co.)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition challenging allotment of hoarding site and rejection of review application.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 20th August 2021 allotting hoarding site to Respondent No.5 and order dated 25th April 2022 rejecting Petitioner's Review Application.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the allotment was made without following prescribed procedure under Government Resolutions and without considering Petitioner's prior rights.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 20th August 2021 allotting hoarding site to Respondent No.5; Order dated 25th April 2022 rejecting Petitioner's Review Application.
Issues
Whether the allotment of hoarding site to Respondent No.5 was legal and valid?
Whether the rejection of Petitioner's Review Application was justified?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the allotment was made without following the procedure under Government Resolutions, without inviting tenders, and without considering Petitioner's prior rights.
Respondent No.5 argued that the allotment was valid and Petitioner had no locus standi.
Ratio Decidendi
The allotment of a hoarding site on government land must follow the prescribed procedure under Government Resolutions, including inviting tenders and considering prior rights. Any allotment made in violation of such procedure is illegal and arbitrary. The rejection of a review application without addressing procedural irregularities is also arbitrary.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, Petitioners challenge order dated 20th August 2021 allotting a hoarding site in favour of Respondent No.5 as well as Order dated 25th April 2022 passed by Minister–Revenue rejecting Petitioner’s Review Application.
The dispute amongst Petitioner and Respondent No.5 is about allotment of hoarding site for display of advertisement at Government Land at CTS No.679 (Part) at Bandra, Mumbai.
Procedural History
The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the order dated 20th August 2021 allotting a hoarding site to Respondent No.5 and the order dated 25th April 2022 rejecting the Petitioner's Review Application. The court heard the matter and reserved judgment on 11th October 2023, pronouncing it on 19th October 2023.
