Surkshit Berojgar Abhiyanta Sanghatna Gondia Thr. President Anand Ajitkumar Jain v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Public Work Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai And Others

1/2 wp3286.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 3286 OF 2016 Sushikshit Berojgar Abhiyanta Sanghatna, Gondia, thr.its President -vsThe State of Maharashtra, thr.its Secretary Public Works Department and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.G.G.Bade, counsel for the petitioner.

Mrs.Bharti Dangre, GP for the respondent Nos.1 to 6. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 23.06.2016.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the tender notice, dated 30/04/2016 as being contrary to the guidelines laid down by the State Government.

It is the case of the petitioner that though in terms of the government policy, that is reflected in Government Resolution, dated 24/04/2015, construction work is to be allotted by tenders to the registered contractors, labour cooperative societies and unemployed engineers in the proportion of 33:33:34, the State Government is not awarding 33% work to the unemployed engineers, the category, to which the petitioner belongs. It is stated that by the impugned tender notice, the majority of the work is provided for the labour cooperative societies.

Mrs. Bharti Dangre, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, states that it would not be possible to award the contract in the proportion stipulated in the Government Resolution, dated 24/04/2015 in each individual tender, but at the end of every year, the ratio in the proportion of 33:33:34 for the three aforesaid categories would be maintained. It is stated that though the majority of work is provided to the labour cooperative societies by the impugned tender, in the next tender, that is in the

2/2 wp3286.16 pipeline, majority of the work would be provided for the unemployed engineers.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that if that be so, the grievance would not survive but the State Government should abide by the statement.

In view of the statement made by the learned Government Pleader, that would be binding on the respondent Nos.4 and 5, we dispose of the writ petition with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE KHUNTE