Rajratna J. Jamnik v. State Of Maharashtra And 5 ORS.

VPH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) No. 47 OF 2014 Rajratna J. Jamnik ...

Petitioner Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...

Respondents *** None for the Petitioner.

*** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Smt. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 6, 2016 PC.

1.

None appears on behalf of the Petitioner. By this PIL, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, Petitioner is seeking following reliefs:

(a) That, the writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ be issued and thereby the Respondent No. 4 be ordered to implement the GR dated 1/11/2008 (bearing no. 1608 / case No. 47 / 08 / 11-A) against the concerning officers involved in the matter of issuing tenders / work orders towards 1 / 3

special repairs to M/s. R. J. Buildcon. Pvt. Ltd. during the years 2009-2010; more particularly the work orders issued on 5/2/2010 & 6/2/2010;

(b) That, writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ be issued and thereby the probe through the state investigation agency be ordered to investigate the embezzlement of funds involved in the matter of issuing tenders / work orders towards special repairs to M/s. R. J. Buildcon. Pvt. Ltd. during the years 2009-2010; more particularly the word orders issued on 5/2/2010 & 6/2/2010;

(c) Pending the final hearing of the present petition the Respondent No. 5 be called for to submit the detail report based on the inquiry proceedings stated to have been instituted vide the letter dated 27/8/2013 addressed by the Respondent No. 6 to Respondent No. 5;

(d) Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) above; (e) Any such and other further relief be passed as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the nature and circumstances of the case."

2.

The Petitioner is seeking directions regarding the tenders which were issued in the year 2009-2010. The PIL is filed in the year 2 / 3

2014, almost after lapse of 4 to 5 years. In our view, there is gross delay in filing this PIL. Apart from that, we are of the view that there is no public interest involved in this PIL. Reserving the right of the Petitioner to make representation to the Corporation, PIL is disposed of. Needless to say that if such a representation is made, the Corporation shall decided it on merits and in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- [Smt. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.] Vinayak Halemath 3 / 3