1 mss OSWP+695 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 695 OF 2010 SHREE LAXMI MAHILA SEVA SANSTHA.. PETITIONER Vs. MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. RESPONDENTS Mr. Bhavesh Parmar i/b Ms. S. A. Maliagar for the petitioners Ms. Shobha Ajithkumar for MMC CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 20/9/2010 P.C. The petitioner claims to be a registered society. It is registered with the office of the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a society which carries out the work of cleaning and sweeping in different areas of Mumbai. We must note that though this submission is made in the court, there is no averment to that effect in the petition. According to the petitioner respondent 6 M/s. Pragati Mahila Mandal is engaged on contract basis by the Mumbai Municipal 2 mss OSWP+695 Corporation (“the Corporation” for short) under the Dattak Vasti Yojana of the Corporation. Under this Yojana, we are informed that the work of cleaning and sweeping is carried out in an area identified by the Corporation by the society to which order is issued by it. According to the petitioner M/s. Pragati Mahila Mandal is allowed to carry out the work of sweeping and cleaning in Malad. However, this Mandal is not registered at Malad. It is a Mandal which is registered at Dahisar. We are informed that as per the policy of the Corporation a local institution is to be preferred to other institutions. 2. Our attention is drawn to letter of the Corporation dated 17/11/09 in which there is a reference to Circular dated 27/10/08. It is annexed at Exh.- B to the petition. The circular states that respondent 6 M/s. Pragati Mahila Mandal is not a local institution and hence letter issued to it should be cancelled and the petitioner should be asked to do the said work. Our attention is also drawn to an undertaking which is annexed at Exh.-C to the petition, given by respondent 6 Mandal that in case any local institution is available they would voluntarily stop the work. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite complaints received about unsatisfactory work carried out by respondent 6, respondent 6 is 3 mss OSWP+695 permitted to continue to do the said work. The petitioner, has, therefore, prayed that the Corporation be directed to act according to the decision taken by it to award the contract to the petitioner which is reflected in the letter dated 17/11/2009. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. He has reiterated the submissions made in the petition. 5. We have also heard learned counsel for the Corporation. Learned Counsel for the Corporation states that respondent 6 has now registered itself as a local institution working in Malad. She further states that the work order has already been issued in favour of respondent 6. Learned Counsel further states that the issue whether respondent 6’s appointment should be continued is pending before Dy. Municipal Commissioner,Zone- IV and order will be soon passed on the said proposal. This is also stated in the affidavit filed by Shri Bawalekar on behalf of the Corporation. 6. In the circumstances of the case, we expect the Dy. Municipal Commissioner, Zone-IV to pass appropriate order after considering the case of the petitioner and the 6th respondent in its proper perspective and after hearing them. Considering the fact that the complaints were received about 4 mss OSWP+695 the work carried out by respondent 6, considering the fact that the decision was taken to give the work at one stage to the petitioner and considering the fact that respondent 6 got itself registered to do the work in Malad area during the pendency of this petition, we feel that the Dy. Municipal Commissioner Zone-IV should after passing order on the pending proposal place the file before the Municipal Commissioner. We request the Municipal Commissioner to consider the decision taken by the Dy. Municipal Corporation in its proper perspective. 7. We hope and trust that all relevant factors are taken into consideration and just and proper order is passed independently and in accordance with law. We hope and trust that the matter is disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. We make it clear that on the merits of the case we have not expressed any opinion. 9. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (R. V. MORE, J.)