Sandeep S/O Suresh Gadekar v. State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary,Ministry Of Urban Development And Others

1 / 3 922-WP 160.2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 160 OF 2020 Sandeep s/o Suresh Gadekar vs.

State of Maharashtra 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. M.M.Akhtar Jamal, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms.Kalyani Deshpande, AGP for Respondent No.1. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATED : 12 JANUARY 2021 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2.

The Petitioner has challenged order dated 27/03/2019 passed by Respondent No.4 - Orange City Hydraulic Works Pvt. Ltd., terminating the services of the Petitioner.

3.

The order of the appointment of the Petitioner issued by Respondent No.4 is on record, which show that he was appointed as a Manager. As to how a Writ can be issued to respondent No.4, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn attention to paragraph 2 of the Petition, where the particulars KOLHE

2 / 3 922-WP 160.2020 have been provided in respect of Respondent No.4. It is stated that Respondent No.4 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation and Nagpur Environmental Service Limited have given a contract to Respondent No.4 to supply water to Nagpur City.

4.

The relying on the position that the Respondent No.4 is supplying water and decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Chess Association vs. Union of India and others1. learned counsel contends that the Respondent No.4 is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of issuing the writ as sought for.

5.

It is not possible to agree with this submission. The relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.4 is of a contract, also the relationship of Respondent No.4 with Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Merely because Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have entered into a contractual relationship with Respondent No.4 for supply of water, it does not result in a position that Respondent No.4 is also to be treated as an Authority under Article 12 for the purpose of this dispute in hand, which remains a _______________________________

1) Civil Appeal No.5654 of 2019 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29040 of 2018

3 / 3 922-WP 160.2020 contractual dispute between Petitioner and the Respondent No.4 and the Petitioner cannot be stated to be in public service.

6.

The Petitioner has remedy open against the impugned order in the appropriate forum.

7.

Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

[ ANIL S. KILOR, J. ] [ NITIN JAMDAR, J. ] KOLHE