Bombay High Court
Ranragini Jankalyan Sanstha Thr. ... vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur ... on 23 January, 2019
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande, Vinay Joshi
pil124.17.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 124 OF 2017
(Ranragini Jankalyan Sanstha vrs. Nagpur Municipal Corporation and
ors)
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Shri Y.B.Mandpe, Advocate h/f Shri Vilas Dongre, Advocate
for Petitioner
Shri A.M.Quazi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate with Shri H. Marathe,
Advocate for Respondent No. 3
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE AND
VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
DATE: 23rd JANUARY, 2019 The work of construction of cement roads under package VI and VII in the city of Nagpur was allotted to Respondent No. 3 - M/s. RPS Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. The complaint in the petition is that, the enquiry is required to be made into the allotment of works to the respondent No.3 who was black listed as per the decision of this Court rendered at Principal Seat on 15.07.2016. The actual order of disqualification was passed on 30.03.2017.
The work in question was allotted on 20.04.2016 i.e. before the judgment was delivered and the affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation in response to the present petition which is sworn in by the City Engineer and the Commissioner indicate that the work is complete. Paras 11 and 12 of the said affidavit are reproduced below.
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2019 00:21:15 ::: pil124.17.odt 2/3"11. I further say that the work granted to the Respondent No.3 consists of 4 roads in package VI for Rs.14.70 crores and 4 roads in package VIII comes to Rs.13.18 crores. Against the work of package VI till the date the sum of Rs.6.76 crores and as against package VIII the sum of Rs.7.15 crores is recommended for payment by PWD even though substantial work has been done with the scope of work by the respondent No.3. Against recommended payments for package VI and VIII, the sum of Rs.4.28 crores and Rs.5.84 crores respectively have been paid to the respondent No.3 by Account Department till the date.
12. I further say that the defect liability period for the work done is 5 years from the date of completion of the work allotted to the contractor. I say that in order to assure the defect free service, from the contractor apart from testing verification and inspection of all nature on technical aspect by the consultant, the NMC has collected the following securities.
i) Rs.29,42,131/- As Bank Guarantee valid till 7.04.2022 (Package VI)
ii) Rs.26,37,927/- Bank Guarantee having validity till 07.04.2022 for package VIII
iii) Rs.22,30,524/- Additional Performance Security against package VI
iv) Rs.20,00,578/- As additional performance security against package VIII.
Both valid upto 07.04.2022 in the form of Bank Guarantee
v) Rs.33,81,618/- As Security Deposit for package VI.
vi) Rs.35,77,021/- As security Deposit for package VIII already deducted from the running bills
vii) Rs. 5,36,917/- Withheld for awaiting Test Reports for package VI
viii) Rs.31,82,181/- Withheld for test results for package VIII to be submitted by the contractor Thus, total Rs.2,94,87,897/- is already with NMC as security deposit in the form of Securities as mentioned above."
In paragraph 15 of the said affidavit, the names of the persons responsible for ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2019 00:21:15 ::: pil124.17.odt 3/3 inspection, supervision and control are stated In view of this, we find that the public interest is protected and we do not find any reason to proceed further in the matter. The Public Interest Litigation is dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rvjalit
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2019 00:21:15 :::