.. 1 ..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

WRIT PETITION NO.4621 OF 2022

M/s. Vinay Sonu Badhe and Company,

through its General Power of Attorney

Rajat Sanjay Badhe

Age : 30 years, Occu : Contractor,

R/o. “Sonai” Shanti Nagar,

Sopan Colony, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon

.. Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra

through the Secretary,

Urban Development Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai

2.

Directorate of Municipal Council

Administration, Through its Director,

Government Transport Service

Building, 3^rd Floor, Sir Pochkhanwala

Road, Worli, Mumbai

3.

The Collector,

Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon

4.

The Chief Officer,

Bhusawal Municipal Council,

Tal. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon

.. Respondents

…

Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/by. Mr. Govind A.

Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner

Mr. S.G. Karlekar, AGP for the Respondent – State

Mr. B.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.4

...

ggp

.. 2 ..

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &

S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

Dated : May 02, 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R.D. DHANUKA, J.) :-

1.

Rule. Learned AGP waives notice on behalf of respondent

nos. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. B. S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel waives notice

on behalf of respondent no. 4.

2.

Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

3.

By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 21-03-2022 passed

by the respondent no. 4 thereby blacklisting the petitioner-firm for

two years and forfeited an amount of Rs.92,42,310/-.

4.

Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner invited our attention to the impugned order passed by

respondent no.4 and also to show cause notice dated 09-03-2022. He

would submit that show cause notice was received on email by the

petitioner on 15-03-2022 and it was replied through mail on

21.03.2022 at 03.30 p.m. He would further submit that one of the

ggp

.. 3 ..

MLA from Bhusawal had raised a star question about condition of

roads of Bhusawal city. In view of the question asked relating to the

work allotted to the petitioner, respondent no.4 passed the impugned

order dated 21.03.2022 without considering the reply filed by the

petitioner.

5.

Mr. B. S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for respondent

no.4 - Chief Officer, on the other hand, would submit that the

petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunities pointing out the delay

on the part of the petitioner in carrying out the work and, thus, the

impugned order was rightly passed by respondent no.4.

6.

Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner would submit that even if the respondent no. 4 was not

satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner regarding delay on the

part of the petitioner, if any, in completing the work, he could not

have blacklisted the petitioner and forfeited the security deposit.

Respondent no.4 could have awarded lesser punishment to the

petitioner as provided in the Government Resolution dated

28-09-2006. He would further submit that the State Government has

already granted extension of time till 21.03.2023 to complete the

works allotted for the year 2018-19 and 2019-2020. He would

ggp

.. 4 ..

submit that the petitioner had already made a representation and had

expressed his readiness and willingness to complete the work in time.

The said representation, however, is pending before respondent no. 4.

7.

Insofar as the impugned order in respect of forfeiting the

security deposit and blacklisting of the petitioner is concerned,

perusal of the record clearly indicates that the show cause notice was

issued by respondent no.4 on 09.03.2022 and the said notice was

received by the petitioner