Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4665 OF 2009 Ravi Yashwant Bhoir ... Petitioner v/s Hon’ble the Chief Minister & ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Dani i/by S.M.Sabrad for the Resp. No.5. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. for Resp. Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 18TH JUNE, 2009 P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.3.2009 passed by the respondent No.1 on an application filed by the respondent No.5 under Section 55-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. By this order, the petitioner has been disqualified as the President of the Uran Municipal Council. 2. The petitioner was elected as the President of the Uran Municipal Council after elections were held to the council. An application was made by the respondent No.5 to the State Government alleging certain acts of misconduct against the petitioner. Charge No.5 was with respect to the conduct of the petitioner in accepting the bid of M/s.Kiran B. Jadhav for laying a 300 mm pipeline in an area known as Sarwoday Wadi. It was alleged that the petitioner had accepted this bid although it was 10% more than the estimated cost which was sanctioned in the year 2005-06. It was alleged further that awarding this tender to the aforesaid firm was in breach of paragraphs 44 to 47 of the Standing Orders of 1971 and Rule 171. The petitioner was then served with the notice of 2.12.2008 by the State Government calling upon him to explain the allegations made against him by the respondent No.5. The petitioner replied the show cause notice. Charge No.5 was answered by the petitioner by explaining that the tender of M/s.Kiran Jadhav was the lowest of the three bidders who had submitted their bids for laying the pipeline and since there was urgent need to lay the pipeline, the bid of M/s.Kiran Jadhav had been accepted. The petitioner contended that the Chief Officer and the Junior Engineer had considered the technical aspect and then forwarded the recommendation to him for his signature. A resolution was then passed by the Municipal Council accepting the tender, according to the petitioner. 3. Thereafter the petitioner was called for a personal hearing before the respondent No.1 after which the order impugned in the present petition was passed. 4. Admittedly, an application for disqualification was preferred by the respondent No.5 on 3.5.2007. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the State Government on 2.12.2008 and the petitioners submitted his explanation on 18.12.2008, after which he was afforded a personal hearing through his advocate. 5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations against him are politically motivated as he does not belong to the party ruling in the State. It is further contended that his disqualification was illegal as the conditions which prevailed at the time when the tender of the contractor was accepted have not been considered. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the person who had initially been given the work for construction of a water tank and laying the pipeline, had merely constructed the tank and had abandoned the work. He had not laid the pipeline for the inflow and outflow due to which it was extremely necessary to engage another contractor. The bid, though higher than the estimated cost, was accepted since there was a tremendous hike in the price of C.I.Pipes. It is submitted that the Standing Orders paragraphs 44 onwards permit the President to take such action as is necessary for implementation of the project. The learned counsel further submits that the project was completed by another contractor only after calling for fresh bids and that the 10% increase over the estimated price considered in the year 2005-06 was due to the escalation in prices of the pipes. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent points out that, under paragraphs 44 to 47 of the Standing Orders, the petitioner was required to complete only part of the job if prices had escalated during the pendency of the work. Thereafter it was necessary to call for fresh bids for completion of the work. It is pointed out that, in the present case, the petitioner without doing so, has exceeded his powers vested in him under paragraphs 44 to 47 of the Standing Orders and accepted the bid of a contractor who had bid 10% higher than the estimated cost for the year 2005-06. 7. In these circumstances, the respondent No.1 who enquired into the matter, found that the petitioner has committed the acts of gross misconduct and, therefore, has disqualified the petitioner. 8. In my opinion, there is no case made out for interference by this Court. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on the judgment in the case of Suresh Kumar s/o Kanhayalal Jethia v/s State of Maharashtra & ors., reported in 2001 (2) Bom.C.R. 537, is of no avail to the petitioner. 9. The interpretation placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on paragraphs 44 and 45 of the Standing Orders is unacceptable. When the petitioner found that the cost is in excess of the budgetary provision, he ought to have called for fresh tenders or awarded part of the contract. Admittedly, the tender of M/s. Kiran Jadhav was beyond the budgetary provision and, therefore, ought not to have been accepted. 10. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action against him was politically motivated is not borne out from the material on record. Despite the complaint against the petitioner being filed in May, 2007, a show cause notice was issued only in December, 2008, after a reminder was sent by the respondent No.5. 11. In the circumstances, writ petition rejected. 12. The order dated 7.5.2009 to continue for a period of four weeks. .....