Bombay High Court
Ansari Mohammad Ibrahim Abdul Rashid vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 26 March, 2026
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
945-WP-2432-26.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
945 WRIT PETITION NO. 2432 OF 2026
Ansari Mohammad Ibrahim Abdul Rashid
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
......
Mr. Nilkanth R. Pawade, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. S.B. Nareade, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2
......
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATE : 26 MARCH, 2026 PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is challenging the e-tender notice No. 06/2025- 2026 issued by respondent No. 3 for the construction of the shopping complex at Pathri. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the requisite procedure as mandated under Section 93 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 has not been followed.
3. It appears that earlier there was an Administrator on the Municipal Council, Pathri, who had issued the tender in view of the administrative approval dated 20.09.2024. The technical sanction order by the Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Division Parbhani to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Pathri dated 30.09.2024 has also been produced. However, it appears that an objection was taken by letter dated 27.01.2025 and then the Chief Officer had cancelled the three e-tenders by issuing corrigendum dated 03.02.2025.
945-WP-2432-26.odt {2}
4. The learned advocate for the petitioner now submits that the prior approval of the Standing Committee has not been taken by respondent No. 3, and now the e-tenders have been issued. He relies on the decision in Nandkishore Ganesh Joshi v. Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Kalyan and Dombivali and others , AIR 2005 Supreme Court 34.
4. By a query from the Court, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not taken on record any material and, in fact, the record does not show that any information was sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act as to whether the process has been completed after the corrigendum was issued. The question is also in respect of as to when the administrative sanction is intact, it is then necessary to again place all the things before the Standing Committee. Normally, all the acts done by the Administrator would then be binding on the subsequent Committees or the Municipal Council itself. Yet, all these things are required to be considered and, therefore, though prima facie we are not convinced, we are issuing notice.
5. Learned AGP waives service of notice for respondents No.1 and 2.
6. Notice of respondents No.3 to 5 is made returnable on 11.06.2026.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S P Rane