Rajesh Waman Rane v. Maharashtra Housing Area And Development Authority And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by DIKSHA DINESH RANE Date:

2023.03.21 11:44:20 +0530 DIKSHA DINESH RANE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.19 OF 2023 Rajesh Waman Rane ..Petitioner VS.

Maharashtra Housing Area and Development Authority & ors.

..Respondents ------------ Adv. Dr. Suresh Mane i/b. Adv. Babita Pandey for the petitioner.

Adv. P. G. Lad a/w. Adv. Sayali Apte & Adv. Shreya Shah for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 (MHADA).

------------

CORAM:

S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE:

MARCH 20, 2023 P.C.:- 1.

Heard learned counsel Dr. Mane for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr. Lad for MHADA.

2.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, duplicate tenders were fraudulently prepared and excess amount was paid to the contractor at the behest of the respondent no.4. The vigilance enquiry was also conducted against the respondent no.4 who was found guilty. Still the respondent no.1 went on promoting the respondent no.4 to Chief ICT Ofocer. Further action is not taken pursuant to the 1/3

vigilance report.

3.

Learned counsel Mr. Lad for the respondents submits that it was by mistake that the excess amount was paid. The bid of LDS Infotech Private Limited is Rs.1,16,72,625/-. Later they submitted documents enhancing the amount to Rs.1,24,85,644/-. This happened because original proposal i.e. bid and bid proposal was misplaced. When it came to the knowledge, the mistake was rectified and letter dated 19/9/2019 was issued to refund the excess amount Rs.8,12,644 along with interest and the said amount was refunded by LDS Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

4.

We have considered the submissions.

5.

In the present PIL petition we would not go into vigilance enquiry report and further steps undertaken pursuant thereto. That would be a different aspect altogether. The parties can act upon the vigilance report. 6.

As far as the recovery is concerned, the same was made even before filing of complaint by the petitioner. It is not the case that because of the complaint of the petitioner, the respondent nos.1 and 4 rectified the mistake. Prior to the complaint, the mistake was rectified and excess amount 2/3

recovered.

7.

As far as promotion is concerned, under service jurisprudence, the petitioner would not have locus standi in respect of the same. In the light of that the PIL petition is disposed of.

8.

No costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 3/3