wp4975.10 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4975 OF 2010 Prakash Kamlakar Pathak ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, advocate for the petitioner Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 7. Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 ..... CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 21st FEBRUARY, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 Advocate Shri Irpatgire, points out that the budget in the year 2008-2009 has not been approved by the office of the Collector, as required under Section 101(4) of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965 (for short “Municipalities Act”). He further contends that the Chief Officer of Municipal Council has without specific authorization of Municipal Council in his favour entered into an agreement with various contractors in relation to about 253 works. According to him, this in violation of the mandatory requirements of law. The Collector empowered under Section 308 of the Municipalities Act ought to have wp4975.10 -2- taken its cognizance and passed appropriate orders suspending the execution of 253 works. He also points out that subsequent approval or rectification of these illegalities cannot cloth the Chief Officer or alleged transaction with any valid status. 2 Learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7 has supported the impugned order. He points out that concurrently the Collector and thereafter the Additonal Commissioner have found that there is no substance in the grievance of the petitioner. 3 Advocate Shri Hon for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 has invited my attention to the previous history. He points out that earlier the Commissioner has refused to grant interim relief in MUM Revision Petition No. 9 of 2009 on 8.5.2009. That order was questioned before this Court in writ petition No. 3958 of 2009 and this court refused to interfere. Refusal was maintained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to appeal (Civil) No.(s) 35978 of 2009 on 6.1.2010. 4 After hearing respective counsel for the parties, I find that advocate for the petitioner failed to point out prejudice, if any, caused to the petitioner in the matter. He was asked to explain what is loss and prejudice caused to the Municipal Council or any damage to the public revenue. However, he is not in a position to point out any such wp4975.10 -3- loss. The authorities have considered the objections of the petitioner under Section 101(4) and the provisions of Section 93 of the Municipalities Act. 4 Consideration by the authorities reveals that there was proper tender process wherever necessary and lowest bidder has been given the work. The works have been allotted in the year 2008-2009. According to the Municipal Council, all works are executed. According to the petitioner works are still going on. 5 It is not necessary for this court to find out whether the works are complete or incomplete. Needless to say that though the period of about two years has expired thereafter, the petitioner is not in a position to point out any malafides on the part of either general body or Municipal Council or then the Chief Officer in the matter. There is no complaint of any misappropriation or malpractice. 6 I therefore, find that refusal to act under Section 308 of the Municipalities Act is justified. Petition is therefore, rejected. No costs. ( B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) rlj/ wp4975.10 -4-