← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/3303/2025disposed off

National Security Services Thr Its Proprietor v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And ORS

2025-03-06Hon'Ble The Chief Justice , Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Bharati Dangre2 pages

1/2 908 WP-3303-25.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

MANDIRA MILIND SALGAONKAR MILIND SALGAONKAR Date: 2025.03.07 16:06:37 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3303 OF 2025 National Security Services through its Proprietor ..

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary & Ors.

..

Respondents ...

Mr.Anandsingh Bayas for the Petitioner.

Mr.A.R.Deolekar, A.G.P. for the State/Respondent No.1. Mr.Rajendra Anbhule with Ms.Pooja Patil and Ms.Nisha Ahire for the Respondent No.2.

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATED : 06th MARCH, 2025 ...

ORDER (PER CHIEF JUSTICE) :- 1.

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner, inter alia, has challenged the action of Respondent No.2 in accepting the ineligible bid submitted by Respondent No.3, inter alia, on the ground that Respondent No.3 is ineligible to participate in the said tender.

2.

We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the Petitioner has filed an objection with regard to ineligibility of Respondent No.3, however, no decision on the M.M.Salgaonkar

2/2 908 WP-3303-25.odt aforesaid objection has been taken by the Savitribai Phule Pune University and the Writ Petition be disposed of with the direction to the University to decide the objection preferred by the Petitioner.

3.

Taking into account the prayer made by the Petitioner, it is not necessary to issue notice to the Respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the authority to decide the objection preferred by the Petitioner with regard to ineligibility of Respondent No.3, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner as well as to the Respondent No.3.

4.

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to ineligibility of Respondent No.3, as the same is required to be looked in at the first instance, by the University. Accordingly, the Petition is disposed of. (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) M.M.Salgaonkar