Agril R/o. Pandurang nagar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded v. The State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department Mantralaya Mumbai-32. District Collector
Case Details
1 102-WP-10141-2022 & Anr. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10141 OF 2022 1) 2) 3) 1. 2. 3. Jayashree Nilesh Pawde, Age: 36, Occu: Agril, R/o. Bhagya nagar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. Kishor Mallikarjun Swami, Age: 53 Yrs,, Occu: Agril R/o, Shobha nagar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. Umesh Devrao Pawle, Age: 37, Occu: Agril R/o. Pandurang nagar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. Versus The State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department Mantralaya Mumbai-32. District Collector, Nanded, District Nanded. Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation, Nanded, District Nanded Through its Commissioner. Mr Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioners Mr D.R. Kale, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State Mr R.K. Ingole Advocate for Respondent No.3 AND 103 WRIT PETITION NO.10194 OF 2022 1) 2) Jayashree Nilesh Pawde, Age: 36, Occu: Agril, R/o. Bhagya nagar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. Kishor Mallikarjun Swami, Age: 53 Yrs,, Occu: Agril R/o, Shobha nagar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. 2 102-WP-10141-2022 & Anr. 3) 1. 2. 3. Umesh Devrao Pawle, Age: 48, Occu: Agril R/o. Pandurang nagar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. Versus The State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department Mantralaya Mumbai-32. District Collector, Nanded, District Nanded. Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation, Nanded, District Nanded Through its Commissioner. Mr Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioners Mr D.R. Kale, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State Mr R.K. Ingole Advocate for Respondent No.3 CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. DATE : 23-01-2023 FINAL ORDER : ( PER MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) 1. 2. 3. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith in both the proceedings. The learned Government Pleader waives service for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr R.K. Ingole, learned advocate waives service for respondent No.3/Municipal Corporation. 4. The Mayor, Standing Committee Chairman and the Counsellor of respondent No. 3/ Municipal Corporation are before this Court aggrieved by the communication received from the State Government 3 102-WP-10141-2022 & Anr. dated 01-07-2022 whereby development works most of which have already been undertaken and are in progress, pursuant to the sanctioning
Legal Reasoning
of the money by the State Government, Rs.100 crores in first petition and Rs. 50 crores in the second one, without assigning any reason, the decision dated 29-06-2022 for releasing the money has been stayed. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner Mr Mahesh Deshmukh would take us through the papers to demonstrate that it is pursuant to the steps being taken by the respondent/Municipal Corporation by floating e- tenders, the development works were allotted. On 29-06-2022, the State Government also directed to release money and abruptly by impugned communication, the decision has been stayed. He would submit that in spite of this Court having directed the respondents by the order dated 19 December 2022, to enable the State Government to communicate whether it would undertake a review and expecting the statement to be made in respect of the time within which such review would be taken, there is no response from the State Government. He submits that when after following the due procedure, the works have been allotted and the contractors have spent money and as per the stand being taken by the respondent No.3/Municipal Corporation, except in case of three works, rest of the works have progressed considerably, this situation would lead to an awkward position where contractors are continuing with the work and the Corporation is under obligation to pay them, but could not because of the stay granted by the State Government unilaterally that too without taking any further steps even for review as is being indicated in affidavit-in- reply. Such an action of the State Government is arbitrary and capricious 4 102-WP-10141-2022 & Anr. and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. The learned advocate Mr Ingole for the respondent No. 3/Corporation submits that the Corporation is supporting the petitioners. It is indeed a matter of concern. He tenders across the bar the latest chart showing the progress of different works as on 20 December 2022 and submits that in the first petition except the item Nos. 10 to 12, the works have progressed considerably and similar is the case in respect of all the works in the other petition. Apart from the inconvenience being caused, even the situation is potentially triggering the conflict between the Corporation on the one hand and the contractors on the other. The Corporation on its own had also communicated to the State Government requesting for release of the funds but in vain. 7. The learned government pleader submits that by the decision dated 29-06-2022, the money was ordered to be released. Taking into consideration the events on the political front which immediately thereafter led to the change in the government, 29 June 2022 was the last day for the earlier government and the new government merely intended to undertake a review which it is entitled to. The State has the power to examine all the aspects and undertake the review. Even if that has not happened for last more than six months, it is the prerogative of the State. 8. As a last ditch effort, the learned government pleader would submit that atleast in respect of the three works at Sr. Nos. 10 to 12 in the first petition where the work has still not commenced, this Court should keep the doors open for the State Government to undertake a review. 5 102-WP-10141-2022 & Anr. 9. Irrespective of the powers of the State Government, particularly in the light of the change in the political scenario, to undertake a review of the works sanctioned and approved the fact remains that there is nothing in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the State even to hint at the circumstances which have led such decision to be taken to undertake a review. Even if it is assumed that the impugned communications dated 1 July 2022 was issued in view of the exigencies, the State had sufficient opportunity to respond to at least in the affidavit-in-reply to make out the reasons and circumstances which prompted it to resort to the proposed review. In the absence of any such ground being taken even in affidavit-in- reply, the only inference that is deducible is that the decision dated 01-07- 2022 is indeed arbitrary and capricious and even the State is finding it difficult to substantiate it even after lapse of almost seven months. 10. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the works were allotted by following due procedure and have progressed to the extent mentioned/pointed out to us from time to time by furnishing charts. Except in respect of three works, the works have progressed considerably beyond 30% and in some cases even those have reached upto 75% by now. 11. By the impugned communication, only the disbursement was stalled and no further action was proposed to be taken in respect of the works that were already allotted. In the absence of any prohibition, even the fact that the works have progressed thereafter, cannot be said to be beyond the purview of the contracts which were allotted to the contractors. 6 102-WP-10141-2022 & Anr. 12. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the impugned communication which stayed disbursement of the money to the respondent/Corporation is not sustainable in law and on facts rather the State Government has been unable to substantiate it. 13 In view of the above discussion, both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned communication dated 01-07-2022 is quashed and set aside and the respondent No.1 is directed to disburse the money as per the government decision dated 29 June 2022. 14.
Legal Reasoning
The rule is made absolute in above terms. [ S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ] mta