← Library
Bombay High CourtIA/17031/2022disposed off

Maru Seva Sangh Thru Secretary, Suresh Ramji Maru v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

2022-08-03Hon'Ble Shri Justice S.V. Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik2 pages

905.IANo.170352022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17035 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2296 OF 2021 Clean Sauchalay ...

Applicant In the Matter Between :

Clean Sauchalay ...

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...

Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17034 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2322 OF 2021 Parivartan Vikas Sanstha ...

Applicant In the Matter Between :

Parivartan Vikas Sanstha ...

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...

Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17031 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2323 OF 2021 Maru Seva Sangh ...

Applicant In the Matter Between :

Maru Seva Sangh ...

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...

Respondents Mr. Sanjeev Kadam a/w. Mr. Mayur Sanap & Ms. Varsha Thorat i/b. Mr. Prashant P. Raul, Advocate for the Applicants/Petitioners.

Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP, AGP for the Respondents/State. Mr. Vijay Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3/APMC. Gaikwad RD 1/2

905.IANo.170352022.doc

CORAM:

S.V. GANGAPURWALA & M. S. KARNIK, JJ.

DATED :

AUGUST 3, 2022 P.C.

1.

Mr. Kadam, learned Advocate for the applicants submits that the present writ petitions are fled for alleged breach on the part of the respondents in adhering to the orders passed by their Appellate Authority. The petitioners all along was contending the specifc rate of Rs.2/- and 3/- which the respondents were not abiding.

2.

The learned Advocate for the respondents contends that the petitioners are guilty of the breach of terms of the tender. The respondents are operating the toilet since 17th July 2021.

3.

It appears that this Court on 8th June 2021 granted interim order in favour of applicant on the applicants depositing 25% of the amount. The same was not complied with. The applicants fled interim applications seeking extension of the interim order. The applications were rejected on 1st July 2021. Since one year, the respondents are operating the toilet. The fresh tenders are already floated. The bids are to be opened tomorrow. It would not be possible now to set the clock back, more particularly when the applicants have failed to comply with the order of depositing 25% of the amount. Even the applicants can take part in the fresh tender process as permissible in law. 4.

Interim applications are disposed of. No costs. (M. S. KARNIK, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date:

2022.08.05 12:57:11 +0530 RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Gaikwad RD 2/2