P. GOPINATH REDDY Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) This Petition is filed with following substantive prayers:

(3.) Earlier the Petitioner herein filed a Writ Petition bearing No.14388 of 2017 (P. Gopinath Reddy s/ o P. Chinnathambi Reddy vs. the State of Maharashtra and others), taking exception to the decision of Respondent No.2 in holding Respondent No.3 as qualified for nature of work detailed in the tender document and praying to issue letter of acceptance and to award contract in favour of the Petitioner. In this Petition, the Petitioner has, in Para-9, stated that to avoid repetition and for the sake of brevity the averments made and contentions urged in the memorandum of said Writ Petition may be considered as part and parcel of this Writ Petition. Keeping in view the said statement made in Para-9 of the present Petition and to avoid repetition, we would focus our attention to the subsequent stages/ the contentions raised before the Municipal Commissioner by the Petitioner and the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation on 25th January, 2018. The Division Bench of this Court (CORAM:S.V. GANGAPURWALA and V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ.) disposed of the afore mentioned Writ Petition No.14388 of 2017, giving direction to Respondent No.2 to consider and deal with the objections raised by the Petitioner to the technical and financial capacity of Respondent No.3. It was made clear that apart from these two objections about the technical capacity and the financial capacity of Respondent No.3, no other objections need to be considered by Respondent No.2. Depending upon the decision of Respondent No.2 after considering the afore mentioned objections, further directions were issued in the operative part of the order.