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

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 153
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Girjamata Labour Cooperative Society Ltd., challenged the Government Resolution dated 24.4.2015 issued by the State of Maharashtra, which mandated an e-tender process for allotment of contracts to Labour Cooperative Societies for works above Rs. 3,00,000/-. The petitioner, a labour cooperative society consisting of labourers from Kannad, Aurangabad, argued that the resolution was arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the concessions granted since 1948, particularly the Government Resolution dated 30.3.1979 which laid down a different procedure. The petitioner contended that the e-tender process would deprive them of work and affect their livelihood. The respondents, represented by the State, argued that the policy was introduced to ensure transparency and efficiency in public works, and that concessions are not absolute rights. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the Government has the power to modify policies in public interest, and the e-tender process applies uniformly to all societies, thus not violating Article 14. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Government Resolution.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Government Policy - Concessions to Labour Cooperative Societies - The Government Resolution dated 24.4.2015 requiring e-tender process for contracts above Rs. 3,00,000/- is not arbitrary or discriminatory. Concessions granted earlier are not vested rights and can be modified by the Government in public interest. The policy applies uniformly to all Labour Cooperative Societies. (Paras 1-10)

B) Cooperative Societies - Labour Cooperative Societies - E-Tender - The court held that the Government has the power to change the mode of allotment of contracts to ensure transparency and efficiency. The e-tender process does not violate any fundamental rights of the petitioner. (Paras 5-10)

C) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Reasonable Classification - The classification of contracts above Rs. 3,00,000/- for e-tender is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia. It does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 8-10)

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 above Rs. 3,00,000/- to Labour Cooperative Societies is arbitrary, discriminatory, 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. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Concessions granted to Labour Cooperative Societies are not vested rights
  • Government can modify policy in public interest
  • E-tender process promotes transparency and efficiency
  • No discrimination if policy applies uniformly to all societies
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 30

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., Kannad, through its Chairman Shaikh Pashu S/o Shaikh Yasin

The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary to the General Administration Department, Mumbai; The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary to the Public Works Department, Mumbai; The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Circle, Aurangabad

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging Government Resolution mandating e-tender process for allotment of contracts to Labour Cooperative Societies.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of Government Resolution dated 24.4.2015 and direction to continue the earlier procedure for allotment of works.

Filing Reason

Petitioner claimed that the new e-tender policy was arbitrary, discriminatory, and would deprive them of work and livelihood.

Issues

Whether the Government Resolution dated 24.4.2015 is arbitrary and discriminatory? Whether the Government can modify concessions granted to Labour Cooperative Societies? Whether the e-tender process violates Article 14 of the Constitution?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the resolution is arbitrary and contrary to the concessions granted since 1948, and that the e-tender process would deprive them of work. Respondent argued that the policy is to ensure transparency and efficiency, and that concessions are not absolute rights.

Ratio Decidendi

Concessions granted to Labour Cooperative Societies are not vested rights; the Government has the power to modify policies in public interest. The e-tender process is a reasonable classification and does not violate Article 14.

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 Labour Cooperative Societies are granted several concessions by the Statement Government since 1948. The court held that the Government has the power to change the mode of allotment of contracts to ensure transparency and efficiency.

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
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging E-Tender Policy for Labour Cooperative Societies. Government Resolution Mandating E-Tender for Contracts Above Rs. 3 Lakhs Upheld as Valid and Non-Discriminatory.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Witness and Incomplete Circumstantial Evidence. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside as sole eyewitness testimony was contradictory and uncorroborated.