Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging E-Tender Policy for Labour Cooperative Societies. Government Resolution Mandating Competitive Bidding for Contracts Above Rs.3 Lakhs Upheld as Valid and Non-Discriminatory.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 116
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Girjamata Labour Cooperative Society Ltd., a labour cooperative society consisting of labourers in Kannad, Aurangabad, challenged the Government Resolution dated 24.4.2015 issued by the State of Maharashtra. The Resolution mandated that all contracts to Labour Cooperative Societies above Rs.3,00,000/- would be allotted through an e-tender process, replacing the earlier system of direct nomination. The petitioner argued that this change violated the concessions granted to labour cooperative societies since 1948 and was arbitrary and illegal. The court examined the history of government policies regarding labour cooperative societies, noting that concessions were modified over time. The court held that the impugned Resolution was a policy decision aimed at ensuring transparency and preventing favoritism. It applied uniformly to all labour cooperative societies and did not violate Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Resolution as valid and in public interest.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Article 14 - Government Policy - The Government Resolution introducing e-tender process for Labour Cooperative Societies for contracts above Rs.3 lakhs does not violate Article 14 as it applies uniformly to all such societies and is based on a rational classification to ensure transparency and prevent favoritism. (Paras 1-10)

B) Cooperative Law - Labour Cooperative Societies - Concessions - The concessions granted to Labour Cooperative Societies since 1948 are not absolute rights but privileges subject to government policy changes. The impugned Resolution does not abolish concessions but modifies the procedure for allotment, requiring competitive bidding for higher value contracts. (Paras 3-8)

C) Administrative Law - Government Resolution - Policy Change - The court held that the government has the power to change its policy in public interest, and the impugned Resolution is a valid exercise of that power. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any mala fides or arbitrariness. (Paras 9-12)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Government Resolution dated 24.4.2015 mandating e-tender process for allotment of contracts to Labour Cooperative Societies above Rs.3,00,000/- is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the rights of the petitioner society.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Government Resolution dated 24.4.2015 as valid and not violative of any constitutional rights.

Law Points

  • Government policy
  • Labour Cooperative Societies
  • E-tender
  • Competitive bidding
  • Concessions
  • Article 14
  • Article 19(1)(g)
  • Article 226
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 29

Writ Petition No.8612 of 2015

2016-08-22

S.V.Gangapurwala, K.K.Sonawane

Mr.A.R.Devkate for petitioner, Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for State

Girjamata Labour Cooperative Society Ltd.

State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging Government Resolution dated 24.4.2015 mandating e-tender process for allotment of contracts to Labour Cooperative Societies above Rs.3,00,000/-.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the Government Resolution dated 24.4.2015 and direction to continue the earlier system of direct nomination.

Filing Reason

Petitioner claimed that the impugned Resolution violated the concessions granted to Labour Cooperative Societies since 1948 and was arbitrary and illegal.

Issues

Whether the Government Resolution dated 24.4.2015 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution? Whether the government can change its policy regarding allotment of contracts to Labour Cooperative Societies?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the concessions granted to Labour Cooperative Societies since 1948 are sacrosanct and cannot be taken away by the impugned Resolution. Petitioner contended that the e-tender process would deprive small societies of work and is against the spirit of cooperative movement. Respondent State argued that the Resolution is a policy decision to ensure transparency and prevent favoritism, and it applies uniformly to all societies.

Ratio Decidendi

The government has the power to change its policy in public interest. The impugned Resolution introducing e-tender process for contracts above Rs.3 lakhs is a valid policy decision aimed at transparency and does not violate Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g). Concessions granted to Labour Cooperative Societies are not absolute rights but privileges subject to modification.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner assails the Government Resolution dated 24.4.2015, stipulating e-tender process in allotment of contracts to the Labour Cooperative Societies above Rs.3,00,000/-. The concessions granted by the Government Resolution dated 30.3.1979 were modified subsequently by various... The court held that the impugned Resolution is a policy decision and not arbitrary.

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed in 2015, heard on 12.8.2016, and judgment pronounced on 22.8.2016.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With Under Section 100 CPC. Suit for Declaration of Ownership and Injunction Dismissed as Plaintiffs Failed to Prove Title and Possession.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Compensation in Police Custodial Death Case — State Directed to Pay ₹10 Lakhs for Negligence and Violation of Article 21. Failure to Provide Timely Medical Aid to Detainee Constitutes Custodial Violence ...