Bombay High Court
Sanjay Shirke vs Vishal A. Jambhle And 4 Ors on 25 November, 2022
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: G.S. Patel, Sharmila U. Deshmukh
23-OSWPL-33717-2022.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 33717 OF 2022
Sanjay Shirke ...Petitioner
Versus
Vishal A Jambhle & Ors ...Respondents
Mrs Indrayani Koparkar, for the Petitioner.
Mr Akshay Shinde, for Respondent No. 3-MMRDA.
Mrs Uma Palsuledesai, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ.
DATED: 25th November 2022
PC:-
SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE
Digitally signed by
SHEPHALI SANJAY
MORMARE
Date: 2022.11.29
1. Rule.
11:15:10 +0530
2. The Petitioner is a Civil Engineer. He was employed last employed with Kumar Infra Projects Limited Respondent No. 4 as a Project Manager. In March 2006 MMRDA, Respondent No. 3 floated a tender for the design in construction of an elevated corridor detailed at Kurla. The details are set out in paragraph 3. The Petitioner was then an employee with Kumar Infra Projects for this project.
Page 1 of 325th November 2022 23-OSWPL-33717-2022.DOC
3. On 17th September 2021 at 4.40 am there was an unfortunate accident. A span tilted or collapsed on the outer side. The Petitioner, then being the Project Manager, went to the site and began to take and initiate corrective measures.
4. It seems that MMRDA decided to conduct an inquiry. It appointed an expert committee. That committee reported that the Project Management Consultant had failed to perform its duty and responsibility, demonstrating negligence. It was also found that there was a miscommunication or a lack of co-ordination "between the contract and PMC in handling important phases of project activities". Apparently, on the basis that the Petitioner was the contractor's Project Manager, the MMRDA without a show cause notice and without a hearing addressed a letter on 17th January 2022 declaring the Petitioner as debarred for two years in all MMRDA projects.
5. There are many grounds taken in the Petition, which we need not examine at this stage. For our present purposes it is sufficient to note that the punishment of debarment, undoubtedly a serious one, and with adverse effects, could not have been issued without a minimal notice and a hearing. Neither was done. The resultant punishment prima facie also appears to be disproportionate.
6. Ordinarily, we might have proceeded with a final hearing of the Petition itself but the learned counsel for MMRDA has no instructions. This is why we have issued Rule.
Page 2 of 325th November 2022 23-OSWPL-33717-2022.DOC
7. We grant interim relief for these reasons in terms of prayer clause (b), which reads as follows:
"(b) Pending hearing and final disposal of the Petition, the Petitioner be allowed to resume his duties in the project of his choice, under the MMRDA, the Respondent No. 3."
8. We clarify prayer clause (b) is not an affirmative direction to MMRDA to engage the Petitioner but that the debarment imposed on the Petitioner from working on any MMRDA project is stayed.
9. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 waive service. Respondent No. 5 is not really concerned. Rule will have to be served on Respondent No. 4 separately.
10. An Affidavit in Reply is really required from Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. That Affidavit in Reply is to be filed and served by 31st January 2023. An Affidavit in Rejoinder is permitted by 28th February 2023.
11. The Petition is to be listed on 31st March 2023.
(Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 3 of 3 25th November 2022