B. K. Educational And Welfare Soc. Nashik Through Ceo v. The Principal Secretary Other Backwar Bahujan Welfare Dept And ORS

Pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6338 OF 2025 B. K. Educational and Welfare Society Nashik .. Petitioner

Versus

The Principal Secretary, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Dept.

& Ors.

.. Respondents Mr. Tushar Sonawane for petitioner.

Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader and Mrs. V. R. Raje, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 4.

CORAM:

ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

by PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Date:

2025.06.16 19:32:13 +0530 PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT DATE:

16th JUNE, 2025 P.C.:

1.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

(a) Rule be issued & record & proceedings be called for. (b) By way of appropriate Writ i.e.

Writ of Mandamus/direction, be pleased to direct the resp. no.2 to act upon the representation/grievance dtd. 3101-2025 filed by the petitioner annexed at Exh.A to the petition & further be pleased to direct the resp. no.2 to hear & decide the same in accordance with law thereby to allow the same as prayed for therein with regard to the issue raised therein;

(c) Be pleased to direct the Respondent no.2 (MAHAJYOTI) to consider the bid of the petitioner in the Tenders in question as per the spot verification report wherein the petitioner was qualified & not opt to shortlist for work by not giving reasons for the same by the Respondent no.2 (MAHAJYOTI)."

2.

Taking into account the order this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents. 3.

The facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition, in nutshell, are that on 12th June, 2024 tender notification was issued by the Managing Director, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Research & Training Institute by which Expression of Interest for empanelment of coaching institutes to provide coaching for IPBS Banking examination proposals and for SSC (Cgl) examination from various coaching institutes. The petitioner as well as respondent no.3 submitted their bids. Admittedly, the bid submitted by the respondent no.3 has been accepted and work order has been issued in favour of respondent no.3 in February, 2025 for a period of one year.

4.

In view of the aforesaid development, which has taken place prior to filing of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner confines the relief only to seek a direction to the Managing Director, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Research & Training Institute, to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner within a specified period.

5.

In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this writ petition

with a direction to the Managing Director, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Research & Training Institute (Respondent No.2) to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)