MAHARANA SECURITY AGENCY AND LABOUR SUPPLIERS THR ITS PROPRIETOR V.V. PARDESHI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:21209-DB ( 1 ) 929 wp 9629.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 929 WRIT PETITION NO. 9629 OF 2025 MAHARANA SECURITY AGENCY AND LABOUR SUPPLIERS THR ITS PROPRIETOR V.V. PARDESHI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND 931 WRIT PETITION NO. 9688 OF 2025 GALAXY MULTI SERVICES THR ITS MANAGER S.I. S. MOOSA VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND 932 WRIT PETITION NO. 9689 OF 2025 ASHOK ENTERPRISES THR ITS PARTNER ASHOK RAMRAJ PAL VERSUS CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR AND ANOTHER
Legal Reasoning
Having considered the rival submissions, we find that the basic premise on which the Petitioners have approached this Court to challenge the impugned tender notice dated 18.07.2025, is itself fallacious. A perusal of the tender notice issued in the year 2022, which fructified into the Petitioners being engaged as agencies to provide human resources, itself shows that it was floated to invite bids for suitable agencies to be empaneled to provide human resources on outsourcing basis. We are of the opinion that even if the Petitioners have been engaged for a period up to September 2026 in pursuance of their bids being accepted, that in itself cannot become a ground for them to claim any prohibition on the Respondent/Municipal Corporation from engaging further agencies for empanelment to provide human resources on outsourcing basis. The Petitioners appear to be presuming that once they have been empaneled and until the period of their engagement continues, the ( 5 ) 929 wp 9629.25 Respondent/Corporation is prohibited from adding further agencies in the panel for providing human resources on outsourcing basis. This presumption on the part of the Petitioners is based on a fallacious understanding of the powers of the Municipal Corporation to maintain such a panel and to add agencies in such a panel for providing human resources. 9. As regards the apprehension expressed on behalf of the Petitioners that the impugned tender notice dated 18.07.2025 indicates that the termination of the agency contracts of the Petitioners is a foregone conclusion, is an apprehension not based on any material on record. 10. In Writ Petition Nos.9688/2025 and 9689/2025 the Petitioners appear to have challenged even the resolution dated 09.07.2025. We are of the opinion that such a challenge is pre-mature, simply for the reason that there is nothing on record to show that any show cause notice is issued against the Petitioners therein. In any case, in the light of the statement made on behalf of the Respondent/ Municipal Corporation that, in the event the Corporation intends to terminate the agreements / agency contracts with the Petitioners, such a step would be taken strictly in accordance with law and the clauses contained in the agreements executed with the Petitioners, no cause of action arises for the ( 6 ) 929 wp 9629.25 Petitioners to pursue the present petitions. 11. The petitions are found to be without any merit and accordingly they are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand
Arguments
….. Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. D.P. Palodkar h/f. Khoche Shubham S., Shrimant Mundhe & D.S. Bagul h/f. Ashish Deshmukh in respective petitions GP/AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. A.B. Girase & V.M. Kagne Advocate for Respondent/Corporation : Mr. S.S. Tope ….. CORAM : MANISH PITALE & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 7th August, 2025 ( 2 ) 929 wp 9629.25 P.C. :- 1. These three petitions are filed by entities who were empaneled as agencies to provide human resources as per tender notices issued by the Respondent/Corporation in the year 2022. Pursuant to their bids being accepted as L1, L2 and L3, agreements were executed with the Petitioners to enable them to supply human resources to the Respondent/Municipal Corporation. 2. The grievance of the Petitioners is in the context of a recent tender notice dated 18.07.2025 issued by the Respondent/Municipal Corporation inviting bids for empanelment of agencies for providing human resources to the Corporation. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently submit that since the agreements executed between the Petitioners and the Respondent/Corporation for providing human resources are in existence till September-2026, till such time that the period expires or that their engagement is terminated in accordance with law, the impugned tender notice could not have been issued by the Respondent/Corporation. 4. Although the Petitioners have challenged the fresh tender notice dated 18.07.2025, in support of the contentions raised on behalf of ( 3 ) 929 wp 9629.25 the Petitioners, reference is made to resolution dated 09.07.2025 passed on behalf of the Respondent/Corporation recording certain alleged wrongdoings on the part of the Petitioners in the context of payments made to the employees / workers and in that the backdrop, resolving to cancelling the agency contracts with the Petitioners, initiating proceedings for recovery of amounts from them and for issuing fresh tenders for supply of human resources through outsourcing. 5. According to the Petitioners, the said resolution indicate the high handed and illegal manner in which the Respondent/Corporation is proceeding in the matter. It is submitted that the tender notice, which resulted in agreements being executed in favour of the Petitioners, contains a specific clause of issuing a written 30 day notice to empaneled agencies like the Petitioners before terminating the contract. In the absence of any such notice being issued, it is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners, that the fresh tender notice issued on 18.07.2025 is arbitrary, illegal and hence deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/ Corporation submits that there is nothing to prevent the Corporation from empaneling further agencies for providing human resources. Therefore, the fundamental premise on which such the Petitioners have approached ( 4 ) 929 wp 9629.25 this Court is fallacious. 7. It is further stated on instructions that if at all the Respondent/Corporation intends to take any adverse action against the Petitioners in the context of the agreements executed with them, such action will be taken in accordance with law. 8.
Decision
disposed of. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] [MANISH PITALE, J.] mub