w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



K.I.P.L. Vistacore Infra Projects J.V. Through its Partnership Utakarsh Balasaheb Patil v/s Ichalkaranjee Municipal Council Office at Council Office & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- C AND C PROJECTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999HR2007PLC036644

Company & Directors' Information:- Y K M PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40109TG2008PTC057263

Company & Directors' Information:- J T L INFRA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L27106CH1991PLC011536

Company & Directors' Information:- T G R PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200KA2012PTC062702

Company & Directors' Information:- H N COMPANY INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201NL2005PTC007743

Company & Directors' Information:- S G PROJECTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65999WB1990PLC049684

Company & Directors' Information:- B C C PROJECTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC112102

Company & Directors' Information:- N A R INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2010PTC066556

Company & Directors' Information:- J K S PROJECTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2011PLC157565

Company & Directors' Information:- V S A INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TG2011PTC074588

Company & Directors' Information:- D M P PROJECTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB2006PTC107513

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T PROJECTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201AS2008PLC008641

Company & Directors' Information:- W AND W PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65910DL1989PTC036754

Company & Directors' Information:- E M C PROJECTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29248WB1964PTC026261

Company & Directors' Information:- T AND T INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200PN2012PTC144893

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND V PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72400DL2011PTC220047

Company & Directors' Information:- M A PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL2005PTC135093

Company & Directors' Information:- S R C INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200KA2014PTC073052

Company & Directors' Information:- S G F INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400JK2013PTC003837

Company & Directors' Information:- K N INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2008PTC058128

Company & Directors' Information:- S. V. S. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100AP1998PTC029024

Company & Directors' Information:- M V PROJECTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202KA2008PTC045272

Company & Directors' Information:- S V S PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200AP2015PTC096787

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2014PTC269040

Company & Directors' Information:- A T E PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL1999PTC102246

Company & Directors' Information:- U W T PROJECTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200AP2004PLC043198

Company & Directors' Information:- R E INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2007PTC175255

Company & Directors' Information:- J J PROJECTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U24231WB1986PTC040246

Company & Directors' Information:- M Y C INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2013PTC055996

Company & Directors' Information:- A R INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202AS2008PTC008561

Company & Directors' Information:- B L INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2014PTC266491

Company & Directors' Information:- Z H PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400WB2012PTC184307

Company & Directors' Information:- K & J PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203MH2004PTC150165

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INFRA(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA2010PTC054009

Company & Directors' Information:- T & I PROJECTS LTD [Active] CIN = L29130WB1984PLC038232

Company & Directors' Information:- B 2 R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2013PTC189971

Company & Directors' Information:- C M PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC130580

Company & Directors' Information:- N G PROJECTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201GJ2003PLC042152

Company & Directors' Information:- E AND C PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29150DL2002PTC115297

Company & Directors' Information:- I V INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309PB2008PTC031932

Company & Directors' Information:- K. C. INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209NL1990PTC003414

Company & Directors' Information:- B. D. R. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202TG1998PTC028780

Company & Directors' Information:- K K INFRA PROJECTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2007PTC056630

Company & Directors' Information:- M & B INFRA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109PB2012PLC036738

Company & Directors' Information:- A E INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2009PTC196191

Company & Directors' Information:- J T L PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101KL2006PTC019439

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND S PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL1996PTC079487

Company & Directors' Information:- L S R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U07010KA2005PTC036041

Company & Directors' Information:- S R R INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209TG2008PLC058571

Company & Directors' Information:- V R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400AP2007PTC054901

Company & Directors' Information:- D C R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2007PTC056307

Company & Directors' Information:- R. R. PROJECTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45200TG1982PTC003711

Company & Directors' Information:- S H PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74996DL2006PTC149971

Company & Directors' Information:- N R R INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70200TG2010PTC067299

Company & Directors' Information:- S R PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45207WB1981PTC033286

Company & Directors' Information:- L E PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45303WB2005PTC102555

Company & Directors' Information:- M. S. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2009PTC131902

Company & Directors' Information:- J V PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC069037

Company & Directors' Information:- B N PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201GJ2009PTC058067

Company & Directors' Information:- J P PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109WB2011PTC165990

Company & Directors' Information:- R K PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC043660

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND G INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45200KL2010PTC027108

Company & Directors' Information:- A B PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2004PTC149404

Company & Directors' Information:- A H INFRA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31501WB2010PLC155151

Company & Directors' Information:- V & H INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203MH2008PTC181787

Company & Directors' Information:- A K PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TG1996PTC023179

Company & Directors' Information:- S N M PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP2010PTC040243

Company & Directors' Information:- R Y INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45400TG2013PTC091764

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND H PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200GJ2013PTC074010

Company & Directors' Information:- K C R INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2009PTC064374

Company & Directors' Information:- M. D. INFRA - PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2009PTC193074

Company & Directors' Information:- N S PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101WB2007PTC117882

Company & Directors' Information:- H S PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45208DL2006PTC153706

Company & Directors' Information:- N M PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29219DL2009PTC186728

Company & Directors' Information:- K. V. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102WB2012PTC188439

Company & Directors' Information:- V G INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2011PTC074184

Company & Directors' Information:- S R U INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP2014PTC065614

Company & Directors' Information:- S G U INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP2015PTC071682

Company & Directors' Information:- K R S PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102AP2012PTC082232

Company & Directors' Information:- B S C PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200DL2011PTC227768

Company & Directors' Information:- J K PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203GJ2001PTC039576

Company & Directors' Information:- F C C PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29248UP1982PTC005786

Company & Directors' Information:- S N PROJECTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110KA1996PLC021040

Company & Directors' Information:- B. D. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U45400WB2010PTC147620

Company & Directors' Information:- C & I PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29100DL2010PTC209136

Company & Directors' Information:- C & I PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2010PTC209136

Company & Directors' Information:- C B PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109WB1997PTC085237

Company & Directors' Information:- G G PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL1998PTC091501

Company & Directors' Information:- J S V INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70200TN2010PTC078632

Company & Directors' Information:- V M G PROJECTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC164117

Company & Directors' Information:- M. L. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2010PTC151513

Company & Directors' Information:- R N D PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102DL1996PTC080051

Company & Directors' Information:- M. K. N. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL2009PTC196755

Company & Directors' Information:- M B R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45300KA2009PTC049005

Company & Directors' Information:- G S P PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201WB1992PTC057116

Company & Directors' Information:- N. S. INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200UP2021PTC142424

Company & Directors' Information:- K P S PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102TG2005PTC046280

Company & Directors' Information:- E AND V PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102TG2004PTC042622

Company & Directors' Information:- M G D INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2015PTC069886

Company & Directors' Information:- T M R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2010ULT211007

Company & Directors' Information:- S C T PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2008PTC184418

Company & Directors' Information:- P A PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45208WB1997PTC083907

Company & Directors' Information:- K R D INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TZ2020PTC034945

Company & Directors' Information:- K P O COUNCIL OF INDIA [Active] CIN = U85300DL2020NPL368920

Company & Directors' Information:- S. G. INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2009PTC192400

Company & Directors' Information:- D & G INFRA AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203PN2009PTC133571

Company & Directors' Information:- G INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TG2015PLC102010

Company & Directors' Information:- N K D PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2008PTC128819

Company & Directors' Information:- A I PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45203WB2000PTC091229

Company & Directors' Information:- P N PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202DL2016PTC289494

Company & Directors' Information:- UTAKARSH PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400BR2014PTC023329

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND M PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC139731

Company & Directors' Information:- K K PROJECTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70200WB1995PTC073058

Company & Directors' Information:- S L PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400AN2009PTC000109

Company & Directors' Information:- Z INFRA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR2009PLC010795

Company & Directors' Information:- S B M INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TR2010PTC008299

Company & Directors' Information:- D. K. INFRA PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400WB2011PLC170421

Company & Directors' Information:- PROJECTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1951PTC019759

Company & Directors' Information:- J S INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC163788

Company & Directors' Information:- S INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45201OR2012PTC016064

Company & Directors' Information:- B S INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2010PTC151174

Company & Directors' Information:- V K M PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2011PTC045725

Company & Directors' Information:- K P PROJECTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1996PTC077397

Company & Directors' Information:- J D C INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209HR2012PTC045407

Company & Directors' Information:- S S P L INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR2011PTC013469

Company & Directors' Information:- C R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400PB2009PTC032572

Company & Directors' Information:- N D B K PROJECTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100PB2012PTC036987

Company & Directors' Information:- N P R PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TN2012PTC086360

Company & Directors' Information:- G P N PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101TZ2006PTC012749

Company & Directors' Information:- Y. M. INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2010PTC211055

Company & Directors' Information:- D H V PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2005PTC045988

Company & Directors' Information:- V K R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2005PTC046370

Company & Directors' Information:- V V INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2008PTC059111

Company & Directors' Information:- M R INFRA & PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209TG2011PTC074858

Company & Directors' Information:- I N C PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109WB2005PTC101620

Company & Directors' Information:- J. S. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2009PTC136510

Company & Directors' Information:- R V G INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70200DL2011PTC219732

Company & Directors' Information:- D J PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15201DL2005PTC134979

Company & Directors' Information:- M S C K PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U70101DL2005PTC135407

Company & Directors' Information:- C. B. PATIL AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH1964PTC012879

Company & Directors' Information:- B R T PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45203TG1996PTC025021

Company & Directors' Information:- T AND M PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201KA2008PTC045199

Company & Directors' Information:- S P G N INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200AP2015PTC096326

Company & Directors' Information:- PATIL INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200PN2009PTC133426

Company & Directors' Information:- Y. C. INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2010PTC151352

Company & Directors' Information:- J K S INFRA (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209PB2012PLC036363

Company & Directors' Information:- J S N INFRA (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2012PLC050189

Company & Directors' Information:- S V V INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2009PTC065498

Company & Directors' Information:- K M M INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2013PTC088878

Company & Directors' Information:- A C G PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201UP1999PTC024162

Company & Directors' Information:- C K B PROJECTS INDIA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102WB2012PLC188740

Company & Directors' Information:- N E PROJECTS LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U16009AS1999PLC005873

Company & Directors' Information:- A R INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2010PLC198594

Company & Directors' Information:- D R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109612

Company & Directors' Information:- R V J INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200DL2013PTC249181

Company & Directors' Information:- J J INFRA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209AP2011PTC078174

Company & Directors' Information:- I J PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102KA2009PTC049320

Company & Directors' Information:- G C N PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200KA2011PTC061371

Company & Directors' Information:- A R INFRA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109MP2007PTC020049

Company & Directors' Information:- L N PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2004PTC043064

Company & Directors' Information:- H B PROJECTS PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U45201WB1993PTC058846

Company & Directors' Information:- I. T. G PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC063342

Company & Directors' Information:- N-INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2008PTC057620

Company & Directors' Information:- M. M. INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109WB2011PTC165005

Company & Directors' Information:- P. S. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U70109WB2011PTC170655

Company & Directors' Information:- D R R INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2007PTC055772

Company & Directors' Information:- R V INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC158257

Company & Directors' Information:- G K V INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200PN2011PTC141814

Company & Directors' Information:- U M T INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2013PTC244469

Company & Directors' Information:- A R N PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202MH2010PTC199122

Company & Directors' Information:- H. K. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400WB2007PTC116467

Company & Directors' Information:- R K B INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400WB2009PTC132587

Company & Directors' Information:- D M C PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB2005PTC105972

Company & Directors' Information:- A H V INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999WB2012PTC180309

Company & Directors' Information:- G. S. INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2008PTC174931

Company & Directors' Information:- S P PROJECTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2010PTC203910

Company & Directors' Information:- J R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109HR2012PTC045119

Company & Directors' Information:- C N R PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA2007PTC041355

Company & Directors' Information:- A J PROJECTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201MH2006PTC164622

Company & Directors' Information:- P B S INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102TG2008PTC060836

Company & Directors' Information:- M R K INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2012PTC080558

Company & Directors' Information:- J M PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MP2007PTC019336

Company & Directors' Information:- L S S PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2013PTC059508

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101DL1995PTC069527

Company & Directors' Information:- G I T T PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TG2006PTC051193

Company & Directors' Information:- Z & I PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45309TN2007PTC064972

Company & Directors' Information:- L G INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TN2014PTC095310

Company & Directors' Information:- B. G. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2012PTC231270

Company & Directors' Information:- R M INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC224655

Company & Directors' Information:- V. K. PATIL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2014PTC150789

Company & Directors' Information:- M C W INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120MH2013PTC244153

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. INFRA PROJECTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TG2015PTC099812

Company & Directors' Information:- P S R PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TG2015PTC101191

Company & Directors' Information:- C Z INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TG2016PTC103916

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND C INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TN2014PTC096607

Company & Directors' Information:- U K PROJECTS AND INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TN2015PTC102111

Company & Directors' Information:- E & E PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2015PTC075033

Company & Directors' Information:- B B R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2005PTC045165

Company & Directors' Information:- M V R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2005PTC045166

Company & Directors' Information:- M N C INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2008PTC058369

Company & Directors' Information:- L V S PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45200TG2010PTC068286

Company & Directors' Information:- K V P INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209TG2011PTC073318

Company & Directors' Information:- L K D INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209TG2013PTC085748

Company & Directors' Information:- R N V PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP2011PTC044240

Company & Directors' Information:- J G INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209CH2012PTC034095

Company & Directors' Information:- K L PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27104DL2003PTC119655

Company & Directors' Information:- K S M PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2009PTC194824

Company & Directors' Information:- 3 G PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2015PTC276736

Company & Directors' Information:- I S R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2005PTC138210

Company & Directors' Information:- L V PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2014PTC272838

Company & Directors' Information:- E & P INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2014PTC271401

Company & Directors' Information:- M K PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2002PTC117787

Company & Directors' Information:- B V M PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC131352

Company & Directors' Information:- B R S INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2013PTC248023

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T INFRA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109DL2015PTC276336

Company & Directors' Information:- K T INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70200DL2010PTC199408

Company & Directors' Information:- K. J. S. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL2006PTC152898

Company & Directors' Information:- A 4 INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100DL2012PTC233921

Company & Directors' Information:- D V INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200AP2014PTC095005

Company & Directors' Information:- N V R INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100AP2015PTC097985

Company & Directors' Information:- K & H INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209AP2013PTC090417

Company & Directors' Information:- V N R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U45400AP2008PTC060896

Company & Directors' Information:- C R R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400AP2015PTC097217

Company & Directors' Information:- A R P PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200HR2012PTC044979

Company & Directors' Information:- H V PROJECTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202HR1997PTC033617

Company & Directors' Information:- C D E F INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200KA2011PTC057888

Company & Directors' Information:- V & V PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109KA2005PTC037578

Company & Directors' Information:- M S S PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202KA2005PTC037905

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND T PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140GJ2009PTC057480

Company & Directors' Information:- M M D INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101GJ2013PTC075444

Company & Directors' Information:- P M D INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201GJ2007PTC050762

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND B PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201GJ2007PTC051077

Company & Directors' Information:- D. B. INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201GJ2010PTC059696

Company & Directors' Information:- B. P. S. R. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109RJ2018PTC063238

Company & Directors' Information:- V & T INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100TG2008PTC061671

Company & Directors' Information:- R M S PROJECTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210DL1975PTC007946

Company & Directors' Information:- A. R. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40200DL2007PTC161559

    Writ Petition (ST.) Nos. 4077 of 2020, 4096 of 2020 along with Interim Application No. 1 of 2020

    Decided On, 27 October 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHAV JAMDAR

    For the Petitioner: Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate a/w Ajit J. Kenjale, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Akshay Shinde, Advocate, R3, Vaibhav Sugdare, ‘A’ Panel Counsel a/w K.S. Thorat, A.P. Vanarase, AGPs. For the Intervenor: U.R. Mankapure, Advocate.



Judgment Text

R.D. Dhanuka, J.1. By Writ Petition (St.) No.4077 of 2020 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for Writ of Certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 26th February 2020 passed by the Chief Officer, Ichalkaranjee Municipal Council cancelling, revoking and concluding the contract with the petitioner and seeks an order and direction against the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 4th February 2020 and to allow the petitioner to complete the project. The petitioner has also impugned the Resolution No.252 dated 28th February 2020 passed by the Ichalkaranjee Municipal Council and prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned Communication dated 9th March 2020 issued by the Chief Officer, Ichalkarnajee Municipal Council in furtherance of the Resolution dated 28th February 2020.2. By Writ Petition (St.) No.4096 of 2020, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10th February 2020 passed by the District Collector, Kolhapur under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act) thereby ordering to suspend the Resolution dated 31st December 2019 passed by the Ichalkaranjee Municipal Council granting extension to the contract awarded to the petitioner till 30th June 2020. Interim Application No.1 of 2020 is filed by Mr.Prakash Maruti Morbale in Writ Petition (St.) No.4096 of 2020 inter alia praying for impleadment of the applicant as one of the respondents. By consent of parties, both these petitions and also the interim application were heard together finally and are being disposed of by a common order. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the aforesaid writ petitions and the interim application are as under:-3. Some time in the year 2014, Ichalkaranjee Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as “Municipal Council”) invited tender for the Development of Underground Sewerage Scheme in Ichalkaranji City which included designing, providing sewere network, constructing, erecting and commissioning of intermediate Sewage Pumping Stations, raising main, 10 + 8 MLD capacity Sewage Treatment Plants based on advanced technology under Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns (hereinafter referred to as “the said work”).4. Pursuant to the said invitation, Joint Venture of Khillare Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Vistacore Infra Projects known as K.I.P.L. Vistacore Infra Projects J.V. submitted their bid for the said work. On 25th August 2014, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner J.V. and the said Municipal Council thereby awarding the said contract to the said J.V. On 28th August 2014, the said Municipal Council issued a work order in favour of the said J.V. The stipulated period of completion of the said work according to the said work was 24 months i.e. till 27th August 2016. On 9th August 2016, the Municipal Council extended the original period by 18 months i.e. till 27th February 2018. It is the case of the Municipal Council that the petitioner failed to complete the work even within the extended period. The said Municipal Council granted further extension for completion of the work upto 4th February 2019 however by imposing penalty of Rs.5,100/- per day on the petitioner till completion of the said work. It is the case of the Municipal Council that the petitioner had challenged levy of penalty before the learned Collector, Kolhapur but was unsuccessful.5. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that during the period between 13th October 2014 to 16th February 2015, though the petitioner started work, there was delay on the part of the Municipal Council in providing plans, designs and other requirements. Various letters were addressed by the petitioner to the Municipal Council for seeking compliance with various requirements during period between 21st January 2015 to 27th April 2015. Bills submitted by the petitioner during the period between 11th December 2014 to 20th January 2017 were duly paid by the Municipal Council. It is the case of the petitioner that during the period between 28th April 2015 to 30th July 2018 the petitioner was continuously making request for DPR, other requirements possession of the STP site.6. It is the case of the Municipal Council that at the time of grant of last extension to the petitioner, the Municipal Council vide letter dated 6th August 2018 had called upon the petitioner to forthwith submit the Bar-chart stating the time limit within which the petitioner would complete the work of laying of underground drainage pipe-line which was part of the tender document. According to the Municipal Council, the petitioner took about 4 months’ time to submit a Bar-chart. On 25th October 2018, the Municipal Council informed the petitioner that on 30th October 2018, police protection would be available to start the work. On 26th December 2018, the petitioner was handed over possession of the land for STP plant and was informed for line out. On 4th January 2019, the petitioner submitted Bar chart and sought drawing and designs from the Municipal Council.7. It is the case of the Municipal Council that though the petitioner was handed over the possession of the plot for construction of STP plant on 14th November 2018, the petitioner failed to commence the actual work. On 16th February 2019, the Municipal Council addressed a letter in this regard to the petitioner. On 15th January 2019, the Municipal Council approved the first drawing with changes recorded therein and directed the petitioner to submit revised layout along with revised hydraulic design of 18 MLD i.e. second design. The petitioner was directed to submit an application to MPCB for consent for establishment of 18 MLD STP and secure the consent at earliest. The petitioner was informed that the required documents for consent will be provided by the Municipal Council. The petitioner, however, did not submit the revised lay out. It is the case of the Municipal Council that the petitioner even did not bother to secure consent from NPCB for establishment of STP. The petitioner started the work unauthorisedly.8. On 6th July 2019, the said Municipal Council alleged delay on the part of the petitioner and threatened to blacklist the petitioner if the work was not carried out expeditiously. On 8th July 2019, the petitioner furnished the FDR to give extension of Bank Guaranee as requested by the Municipal Council. On 23rd July 2019, 30th July 2019 and 30th August 2019, the Municipal Council issued various notices alleging delay on the part of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, on 20th November 2018, the Municipal Council issued a preliminary notice to the petitioner. On 3rd January 2019, the Municipal Council issued a final notice to the petitioner. The petitioner (J.V.) filed Writ Petition bearing (St.) No.37386 of 2018 which was disposed of by an order dated 4th January 2019. It is the case of the Municipal Council that after the receipt of the said notice dated 4th February 2019, the petitioner assured orally that it will speed up the work and accordingly for a period of 4-5 days, the work commenced. However, once again the work stopped thereafter.9. On 14th May 2019, the Municipal Council addressed a letter to the petitioner that the petitioner could start work at the places which were mentioned therein. It was brought to the notice of the petitioner that due to incomplete work of laying of drainage pipeline on the Sangli road, the Municipal Council had received many complaints on account of big pot-holes on the road. The petitioner was directed to complete the work of laying of drainage pipeline and tar road before commencement of monsoon. The petitioner however, failed to start the work. On 25th June 2019, the said Municipal Council placed on record that no work was progressed by the petitioner even as per the Bar chart submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner did not even complete the work of underground drainage pipeline as also the tar road from Sangli road.10. On 17th September 2019, the Municipal Council passed a Resolution to blacklist the petitioner and cancel the contract awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner was informed about the said decision on 21st September 2019. The petitioner impugned the said decision by filing a writ petition bearing No.10298 of 2019 before this Court. On 14th October 2019, the Municipal Council withdrew the said final notice and thus this Court after recording the statement made by the learned counsel for the Municipal Council disposed of the said writ petition bearing No.10298 of 2019 and granted liberty to the Municipal Council to issue fresh notice to the petitioner.11. It is the case of the petitioner that on 16th October 2019, the petitioner requested the Municipal Council to allow the petitioner to carry out work. On 17th October 2019, the Municipal Council restrained the petitioner to start work stating that the Municipal Council had already commenced the process of initiating action against the petitioner. On 30th October 2019, the Municipal Council issued a fresh notice to the petitioner. On 8th November 2019, the petitioner submitted its response to the said notice.12. It is the case of the Municipal Council that on 14th November 2019, the petitioner was heard by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council. Mr. Ghorpade, a representative of Khillare Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. assured that the construction of STP would be competed within one year and further assured that letter to that effect would be submitted to the Municipal Council. No such letter however was submitted by the joint venture partner Khillare Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to the Municipal Council.13. On 18th November 2019, Khillare Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. informed the Municipal Council that they have withdrawn from the joint venture and that all the contractual liabilities henceforth will rest upon Vistcore Infra Pvt. Ltd. alone and that the contract will be completed and executed by the Vistcore Infra Pvt. Ltd. alone. On 18th November 2019, the petitioner J.V. forwarded the said letter dated 18th November 2019 to the Municipal Council. On 27th November 2019, the Municipal Council informed the joint venture that action of blacklisting the petitioner and cancellation of contract would be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition bearing (st.) No.20420 of 2019 impugning the said letter dated 27th November 2019.14. On 31st December 2019, the Municipal Council passed a Resolution bearing No.180 thereby granting extension of 6 months’ time to the petitioner to complete the work subject to certain conditions i.e. upto 30th June 2020. It is the case of the Municipal Council that the said Resolution dated 31st December 2019 passed by the Municipal Council was contrary to the detailed report of the Municipal Administration dated 10th December 2019. It is also the case of the Municipal Council that till 30th June 2020, the petitioner had not even complied with the conditional extension granted by the Resolution dated 31st December 2019 by not submitting bond.15. On 9th January 2020, Mr.Shashak Bawachkar, a co-opted councillor made a complaint by a letter to the Collector, Kolhapur in respect of the resolution dated 31st December, 2019. Pursuant to the said complaint dated 9th January 2020, the Collector, Kolhapur sought a reply from the Municipal Council. On 21st January 2020, the Chief Officer submitted a detailed report before the Collector, Kolhapur.16. It is the case of the petitioner that on 27th January 2020, the petitioner had already started the work. On 22nd January 2020 and 30th January 2020, the notices were issued by the Municipal Council for holding General Body Meeting on 30th January 2020 and added an agenda to terminate the petitioner’s contract and blacklist the petitioner. On 10th January 2020, the Collector, Kolhapur pased an order purportedly invoking the powers under Section 308(1) of the said Act and suspended the Resolution dated 31st December 2019. On 11th February, 2020 an office report was submitted in the General Body Meeting to the President of the Council for placing the matter before the General Body for taking appropriate action. On 26th February 2020, respondent No.1-Council issued a letter to the petitioner to submit the final bill for taking further necessary action.17. On 28th February 2020, the report of the Municipal Administration was put up before the General Body of the Municipal Council. The Municipal Council unanimously passed a Resolution thereby accepting the order dated 10th February 2020 passed by the Collector, Kolhapur. It is the case of the the Municipal Council that an unanimous decision was taken in the said meeting on the basis of the detailed reasons to recommend the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran to blacklist the petitioner and to cancel the contract awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner was informed about the said Resolution by the Municipal Council on 4th /9th March 2020. The petitioner therefore filed a Writ Petition bearing (St.) No.4077 of 2020 before this Court inter alia praying for various reliefs. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner applied for amendment in the said writ petition so as to impugn the Resolution No.252 dated 28th February 2020 passed by the respondent no.1 and for setting aside the impugned Communication dated 9th March 2020.18. On 2nd March 2020, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition bearing (St.) No.4096 of 2020 impugning the order dated 10th February 2020 passed by the respondent no.3 -Collector, Kolhapur.19. Submission of Mr.Y.S. Jahagirdar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner:-(a) Mr. Jahagirdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to various averments made in the writ petition, affidavit in reply and rejoinder and also various annexures thereof. He invited our attention to unamended Section 308 of the said Act and also amended Section 308 amended w.e.f. 25th January, 2018.(b) The impugned order is passed by the Collector pursuant to the private complaint of a co-opted councillor dated 8th January, 2020 regarding a resolution passed by the Council on 31st December, 2019. The Chief Officer of the Municipal Council filed a reply to the said complaint dated 8th January, 2020 before the learned Collector. It is only the Chief Officer of the concerned Municipal Council who can send the resolution to the Collector to suspend it or prohibit its effect. The Chief Officer in this case has not sent the said resolution dated 31st December, 2019 to the Collector to suspend it or prohibit its effect under Section 308(1) and that also within the period of three days from the date of receipt of such resolution. The Collector thus had no jurisdiction to entertain complaint purportedly under Section 308(i) of the Act and pass the impugned order.(c) Under the unamended provision, the Collector had suo-moto power to question a resolution of Municipal Council in the contingencies prescribed such as law and order, breach of peace etc. Amended Section 308(1) confers powers on Collector to suspend the resolution of Municipal Council only if the Chief Officer finds that the resolution is ultra vires the provisions of the Act and if the same is referred to Collector within three days of the receipt of the resolution. The Collector had acted without jurisdiction by entertaining a complaint made by a co-opted councillor and not based on the resolution sent by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council to the Collector to suspend it or prohibit its effect.(d) In his alternate arguments, it is submitted that even if the reply of the respondent no.1-Council is considered as a reference as contemplated under amended Section 308(1) of the said Act, such reference has to be made within three days of receipt of resolution. The reply sent by the Chief Officer was dated 21st January, 2020. The reference to Collector made by the Chief Officer under Section 308(1) even if the said reply is considered as a reference was barred by limitation prescribed under Section 308(i) of the said Act.(e) Even if a private complaint was maintainable before the Collector, the Collector had to decide it within 30 days from the date of receipt of such complaint, even if such complaint is considered as a reference failing which the Collector has to refer the matter to the Director under amended Section 308(1) within 10 days and the decision of the Director thereon shall be final. The said provisions provides for an appeal against the order of a Director to the State Government. The time period of 3 days for making a reference to a Collector by the Chief Officer from the date of receipt of the resolution passed by the Council and time limit of 30 days for deciding the said reference is mandatory. The Collector ceases to have jurisdiction after expiry of 30 days and is bound to submit a report to the Director within 10 days. The decision of the Director in that event shall be final. A remedy of appeal is provided against the order of the Director to the State Government.(f) A Chief Officer is enjoined under amended Section 308(1) to come to a finding that a resolution is ultra vires the provisions of the said Act or any other law or rules or bye-laws or Government directions. The Chief Officer has not rendered any such finding even in his report/reply submitted before the Collector in response to the complaint filed by the said co-opted councillor. The Collector therefore had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in absence of this jurisdictional fact.(g) Insofar as the reliance placed by the Council on the Circular dated 12th July, 2019 in support of the submission that Section 308(1) of the said Act is further amended by the said circular is concerned, learned senior counsel submits that the said circular is only an administrative instruction and cannot override a statute. A circular cannot stultify a statute. If the legislature intents to negate the effect of the judgment, it has to amend the law by removing the basis of the judgment. A circular cannot negate the law laid down by the High Court. If a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in a manner prescribed and not in any other way. Section 308(1) of the said Act enjoins the Chief Officer to bring to the notice of Collector, the illegal resolution and that too within 3 days. None of the statutory mandatory requirements are fulfilled by the learned Collector while passing the impugned order. The impugned order is null and void. All actions based thereon have to be declared as null and void and deserves to be set aside.(h) The mischief which the legislature intended to rectify by amending Section 308(1) of the said Act was deluding the Collector to act suo-moto and prevent unscrupulous elements or vested interest thwarting the business of Municipal Council and indirectly controlling the Council. The said amendment was carried out so as to restrict the manner and exercise of power of Collector which under the guise of public interest was a blanket power. The amended section also seeks to impose system of checks and balances in the sence the Chief Officer should first be satisfied that circumstances exist to stay the resolution and then Collector to apply its mind thereupon which earlier was an unbridled power of the Collector. Time frame provided under the amended section ensures smooth, speedy implementation of resolution of Council and to settle the things which otherwise could be unsettled with change in power or officer.(i) The petitioner had already started work during the period between 13th October, 2014 to 16th February, 2015. There was however delay on the part of Council in providing plans, designs and other requirements. Several letters were addressed by the petitioner to the Council to comply with the requirements. The bills submitted by the petitioner were duly paid by the Council during the period between 11th December, 2014 to 20th January, 2017. The petitioner was continuously making request for DPR and other requirements, possession of STP site during the period between 28th April, 2015 to 30th July, 2018. The respondent granted extension of time upto 4th February, 2019 on 26th July, 2018 with penalty of Rs.5,100/-. The petitioner was informed only on 25th October, 218 that on 30th October, 2018, Police protection would be available to start the work. On 26th December, 2018, the petitioner handed over possession of the land for STP plant and was informed about line out.(j) Various notices such as 23rd July, 2019, 30th July, 2019 and 30th August, 2019 were issued by the Council with malafide intentions. Final notice dated 13th September, 2019 was also issued by the Council to take positive steps within 7 days and threatening to terminate the contract and to blacklist the petitioner was with malafide pre-determined intentions. Notice of the meeting to be held on 17th September, 2019 of Council on 13th September, 2019 to cancel the contract and to issue fresh tender was also illegal. The petitioner had already replied to the said notice dated 13th September, 2019 on 14th September, 2019. The petitioner was informed on 21st October, 2019 that the resolution had been passed by the Council and the contract awarded to the petitioner came to be terminated and that the petitioner was blacklisted.(k) In respect of the issue raised by the Municipal Council that the Joint Venture not being in existence, writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, it is submitted that though one of the partner had addressed a letter to the Municipal Council that it would not continue with the joint venture and the entire work would be carried out by the other partner of the Joint Venture, such request of the said partner to Joint Venture was admittedly not accepted by the Council. The extension was thereafter granted by the Municipal Council to the Joint Venture. There was no document on record before the Municipal Council to demonstrate that the Joint Venture was dissolved. Merely on the basis of one of the letter addressed by one of the partner to the Joint Venture, it would not dissolve the said Joint Venture in absence of any specific document to that effect. He invited our attention to the impugned Resolution at page 417 of the writ petition and would submit that there is a reference to one of the Joint Venture partners expressing desire to retire and specifically rejecting the said request made by the said partner by the Municipal Council. The Municipal Council had thus waived its right to cancel the contract on the said ground.(l) On the issue of the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of there being disputed question of fact in the writ petition, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that there is no blanket injunction on the powers of this Court from exercising its discretion in a contractual matter. The exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be on the basis of facts and circumstances in each case. The powers of Writ Court under Article 226 can be exercised irrespective of dispute being contractual. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is attracted even in case of a contractual dispute between two parties including the Government or the other authority falling under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.(m) Learned senior counsel placed reliance on Section 81(15) of the said Act which reads thus:-“No resolution of a Council shall be modified or cancelled within three months after the passing thereof except by a resolution supported by not less than one-half of the total number of Councillors and passed at the meeting of which notice shall have been given fulfilling the requirements of clause (4) and setting forth fully the resolution which it is proposed to modify or cancel at such meeting and the motion or proposition for the modification or cancellation of such resolution”.(n) The agenda for the meeting dated 28th February, 2020 on page 401 of the petition clearly indicates that it was only for the purpose of appraising the Municipal Council about the order passed by the Collector. There was no agenda for modification of earlier resolution dated 31st December, 2019. The impugned decision taken by the Municipal Council in the said meeting dated 28th February, 2020 to terminate the contract awarded to the petitioner and to blacklist the petitioner is ex-facie contrary to and in violation of Section 81(15) of the said Act. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on Section 81(10) of the said Act which reads thus:-“Except with the permission of the presiding authority (which shall not be given in the case of a motion or proposition to modify or cancel any resolution within three months after the passing thereof), no business shall be transacted and no proposition shall be discussed at any meeting unless it had been mentioned in the notice convening such meeting or in the case of a special meeting, in the written request for such meeting :1[provided that, no such permission shall be granted by the authority for consideration of more than five subjects in the meeting.]”(o) It is submitted that even if it is considered that the Municipal Council could have taken up the issue of cancellation of contract as subject with permission of the presiding authority, such permission to modify a resolution cannot be given in view of Section 81(10) of the said Act in view of the said provisions prohibiting grant of such permission and that also unless the mandatory procedure prescribed therein is followed. The Council could not have passed the impugned resolution. When a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the manner prescribed or else could not be done.(p) Even if for the sake of arguments it is assumed that the Municipal Council could have taken up the issue of cancellation of contract on the ground of delay the fact that the Municipal Council had passed a resolution on 31st December, 2019 granting extension to the petitioner would clearly falsify this contention of the Municipal Council. The alleged delay on the part of the petitioner stood condoned in view of the Municipal Council having acquiesced/waived its rights to cancel the contract on account of delay. From the correspondence produced on record, it would be clear that the Municipal Council itself was responsible for delay.(q) Learned senior counsel invited our attention to the averments made by the Council in paragraph 47(a) on page 434 and would submit that the said averments itself would indicate that the Municipal Council had taken upon itself the decision not to invoke provisions of Section 308(3) of the said Act to recommend the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran to initiate action of blacklisting the petitioner and to cancel the contract awarded to the petitioner without seeking any approval from the Municipal Council. This act on the part of the Municipal Council coupled with its earlier actions would clearly establish its malafides against the petitioner. The Municipal Council though was fully aware of the amendment to Section 308(1) amended on 25th January, 2018, still relied upon the said unamended Section 308(1) on oath to justify the illegal action of the Collector.(r) The reasons recorded in the impugned resolution for resolving to terminate the contract awarded to the petitioner that the petitioner had not carried out any work within a period of 1 month from the date of such resolution dated 31st December, 2019 is false and contrary to the letter dated 27th January, 2020 issued by the petitioner along with the photographs showing that the work was in progress. No notice was given to the petitioner by the Municipal Council that they are invoking the said clause in the resolution dated 31st December, 2019. The entire action on the part of the Municipal Council and also the Collector is in teeth of principles of natural justice and is arbitrary.(s) Insofar as the arguments that the impugned resolution dated 28th February, 2020 is consequential to the resolution dated 31st December, 2019, in view of the alleged self-operative clause is concerned, there was no occasion for the Municipal Council to again terminate the contract. The work had already commenced as per resolution dated 31st December, 2019 which was stopped only by the Municipal Council. He strongly placed reliance on the letter dated 27th January, 2020 addressed by the petitioner to the Municipal Council and would submit that the said letter would clearly indicate that the petitioner had started the work pursuant to the resolution dated 31st December, 2019. The Municipal Council thus could not have cancelled the resolution dated 31st December, 2019. The entire action on the part of the Municipal Council to pass the resolution dated 28th February, 2020 was on the basis of the order passed by the Collector dated 10th February, 2020 which was in gross violation of the amended provisions of Section 308(1) of the said Act. Since, the order passed by the Collector under Section 308(1) was illegal and without jurisdiction, the resolution dated 28th February, 2020 passed by the Municipal Council thereby resolving to terminate the contract awarded to the petitioner and to blacklist the petitioner is also illegal and contrary to Section 308(1) of the said Act.(t) The Municipal Council passed the impugned resolution though there was no agenda to terminate the contract awarded to the petitioner. In the reply dated 21st January, 2020 in response to the complaint filed by one of the co-opted councillor Mr. Bawachkar, the Chief Officer had suggested that the petitioner be asked to complete the work and if a fresh tender would be invited, the entire payment to the petitioner would go waste. In the resolution dated 31st December, 2019 passed by the Council, it was resolved that if the contract awarded to the petitioner would be terminated and if a fresh tender is invited, the Municipal Council who is already debt ridden would have to pay about 30% - 40% more on the new contract, if required to be awarded. The Collector could not have treated the letter dated 21st January, 2020 as a report of Chief Officer under Section 308(1) of the said Act. The extension was granted to the petitioner by a resolution passed by the General Body on 31st December, 2019. However, the resolution dated 28th February, 2020 passed by the Council was passed without any notice or any personal hearing to the petitioner. In the said resolution it was also resolved to take steps to blacklist the petitioner. The agenda for the said meeting was to bring the order of the Collector on record of the Municipal Corporation and not to terminate the contract awarded to the petitioner or to blacklist it.20. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments:-(a) Judgment of Supreme Court in case of Gammon India Limited v/s. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, (2011) 12 SCC 499.(b) Judgment of Supreme Court in case of P. Dasa Muni Reddy v/s. P. Appa Rao, (1974) 2 SCC 725.(c) Judgment of Supreme Court in case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. v/s. Union of India and Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 728.(d) Judgment of Lahore High Court in case of Nazir Ahmed v/s. King-Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 (2).(e) Judgment of Supreme Court in case of B.L. Sreedhar and Ors. v/s. K.M. Munireddy (dead) and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 355.(f) Judgment of Supreme Court in case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 465.(g) Judgment of Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v/s. Jogendra Singh, (1964) 2 SCR 197.(h) Judgment of Supreme Court in case of Deewan Singh and Ors. v/s. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi and Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 528.(i) Judgment of Supreme Court in case of Dinkar Anna Patil and Anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 354.(j) Judgment of Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench in case of Al-Waffi Agro Food Company, Balapur, Dist. Akola v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2019(3) Mh.L.J. 899.(k) Judgment of Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v/s. M/s G.S. Dall and Flour Mills, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 150.(l) Judgment of Supreme Court in case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v/s. Kausarbag Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Anr., (2014) 15 SCC 753.21.Submissions made by Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2:- (a) The Petitioner J.V. had participated in the tender process initiated by the Municipal Council. The petitioner J.V. was declared as successful. The Agreement was executed between the petitioner J.V. and the Municipal Council on 25th August, 2014. The work order was also issued in favour of the petitioner J.V. on 28th August, 2014. Till 17th November, 2019 there existed a J.V. between Vistacore Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Khillare Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. On and from 18th November, 2019 M/s Khillare Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. has withdrawn itself as a partner from joint venture.(b) Learned senior counsel invited our attention to letter dated 18th November, 2019 from M/s Khillare Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and the letter addressed by the petitioner accepting this fact and informing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that henceforth the balance work would be carried out by the Vistacore Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. and not by joint venture. The agreement entered into between the Municipal Council and the petitioner J.V. would also indicate that the said M/s Khillare Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. had been given the status “lead partner” with authority to sign all documents on behalf of joint venture. The writ petition however is filed only by the other partner who alone has no authority to act under the Joint Venture Agreement. The writ petition is not maintainable on this ground also. Since, the Joint Venture who had participated in the tender process stood dissolved w.e.f. 18th November, 2019, the Joint Venture is no longer in existence on and from the said date.(c) In his alternate submission, it is submitted that this writ petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there is no fundamental right, constitutional right or statutory right of the petitioner that is stated to have been infringed. The right of the petitioners, if any arises purely out of a contract between the parties. The dispute raised in the writ petition is purely a contractual one between the parties i.e. tender document and the contract dated 25th August, 2014. The powers of Writ Court exercising extra ordinary constitutional writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the facts of this case.(d) The petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy available in law. There can be no adjudication of contractual matters between the parties and more particularly in view of there being several disputed facts in this writ petition. Writ Court cannot enter into and cannot determine the correctness of rival interpretations of the terms of contract/tender documents in the backdrop of disputed questions of fact and there being rival interpretations of the terms of contract involved. The remedy of the petitioner, if any would be to file an appropriate proceedings for claiming damages which can be directed to be decided on its own merits. The petitioner in law can claim only monetary relief, if it proves damages. None of the prayers sought in the writ petition can be granted. This Court cannot revive the contract which is already terminated and monitor its execution.(e) Reliance is placed on Clause 45 of the tender document in support of the submission that the redressal of the dispute can be by referring the matter to the Court of law subject to Hatkanangale jurisdiction only. Writ petition is not maintainable on this ground also.(f) The Panchganga River placed from the Ichalkaranji city and is the most prominent source of drinking water to residence of Ichalkaranji city. The present sewage system in Ichalkaranji city does not cover the extended area of Municipal Council, Shahapur and Kabnoor where there is no sewerage system in place. There are open gutters or surface drains on the road side to convey the effluent and sewage upto the disposal point. All the surface drains carry sewage about 15 to 20 MLD and dispose it of in the Nalla at 4 major locations without any treatment, which ultimately is carried in River Panchganga. This causes pollution in Nalla and ultimately River Panchganga which causes health hazards in down stream villages. The Municipal Council had accordingly proposed to admit a project to connect all the sewages generated from that area of the town and to treat it and make the raw sewage fit for disposal, sewerage scheme covering that area of the town. The project in question is of utmost importance from the point of view of river pollution and health of residence of the city.(g) There are several litigations pending concerning the pollution of Panchganga River in the National Green Tribunal. The Council is required to submits progress report of the project before the National Green Tribunal in compliance with the directions issued by the Tribunal from time to time. The National Green Tribunal has recently issued directions to the Municipal Council to the effect that if the pollution does not stop, the concerned Officers shall be responsible and would be prosecuted. PIL bearing No.183 of 2012 along with other connected matters are also filed in this Court, raising the issue of pollution of Panchganga River on account of various activities to the one which was discharge untreated water from the Ichalkaranji city in the river. This Court has issued various interim directions on 10th November, 2014 to the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and the respondent no.1 Council on 10th November, 2014 in the said PIL No. 183 of 2012.(h) The Municipal Council has received various notices from Maharashtra Pollution Control Board regarding pollution. The last of such notice was received on 2nd June, 2020. The Municipal Council has submitted an undertaking to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board in the year 2017 to complete the STP by February, 2019. The construction of sewerage system plant and its timely completion is very serious and important from the point of view of larger public interest. The petitioner has been taking very casual approach as regards the timely completion of the project in issue.(i) Leaned senior counsel placed reliance on various correspondence annexed to the pleadings filed by both parties and would submit that in this case the bar chart itself was submitted by the petitioner after expiry of 4 months. Two extensions were required to be granted to the petitioner by respondent no.2. There was gross delay on the part of the petitioner. The Central Government may withdraw the funds allocated for this project in favour of the respondent no.1 Council if there is any further delay in project. He relied upon the report submitted by the Chief Officer of the respondent no.1 Council to the Collector requesting to suspend the resolution dated 31st December, 2019. He submits that on 10th February, 2020, the Collector passed an order suspending the said resolution dated 31st December, 2019. The General Body of the respondent no.1 Council thereafter passed a resolution on 28th February, 2020 not only on the basis of the order passed by the Collector but also recorded various reasons while resolving to terminate the contract awarded to the petitioner and to blacklist it. After passing of the said resolution by the Municipal Council, the Council issued a letter on 9th March, 2020 thereby terminating the contract awarded to the petitioner.(j) Learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to the prayers in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and would submit that none of the prayers can be granted by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is seeking specific performance of the contract in this writ petition by seeking Writ of Mandamus to direct the Municipal Council to permit the petitioner to continue the work which cannot be granted by this Court. Even Civil Court is not competent to grant specific performance in this type of situation.(k) A Writ Court has no power to grant extension of contract and that also by setting aside the decision taken by the Municipal Council to terminate the contract awarded to the petitioner and also to blacklist it in the facts and circumstances of this case or otherwise. The dispute between the parties being contractual dispute, no powers of interference can be exercised by Writ Court. This Court cannot compel the Municipal Council to get the incomplete work done from such contractor while exercising powers of a Writ Court. This Court has to appreciate that private interest cannot prevail over the public interest.(l) In last 5 years the petitioner J.V. has completed only 60% work of laying of under ground drainage pipe line. Not more than 1% work is completed in respect of the work of construction of STP. Several arguments raised across the bar by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are not raised in the writ petition. Municipal Council had passed a resolution dated 31st December, 2019 granting extension to the petitioner till 30th June, 2020 to complete the work despite there being contrary report of the Municipal Council. Mr. Shashank Bawachkar a Councillor of the respondent no.1 Council filed a complaint under Section 308 of the said Act to the Collector to suspend the said resolution dated 31st December, 2019 for various reasons. The Collector had sought report from the respondent no.1 vide letter dated 17th January, 2020 on the said complaint filed by the said Councillor. The Municipal Council had submitted a detailed report to the Collector on 21st January, 2020 which would clearly indicate that the said report makes a recommendation and more particularly in the second last paragraph to suspend the resolution dated 31st December, 2019. In the said report, the Chief Officer also sought an appropriate direction to be taken from the Urban Development Department to fact track the process of issuance of fresh tender and for timely completion of the work under the fresh tender. By the said report, the Chief Officer had not sought any direction to complete the work through the petitioner.(m) The Collector had passed the impugned order after considering the report of the Municipal Council. There is a reference to the said report made by the Municipal Council in the said order passed by the Collector. The Collector has also referred to the recommendation made by the Chief Officer in the said report while passing the impugned order. The Collector referred to the complaint of Mr. Bawachkar as a matter of fact and has not passed the impugned order on the basis of the said complaint. The Collector has passed the impugned order only on the basis of the report submitted by the Chief Officer.(n) Our attention is invited to the amended Section 308 of the said Act. It is submitted that the Chief Officer has to send report to the Collector and that the Collector can take action on the basis of the report of the Chief Officer. In his alternate submission, it is submitted that the State Government has issued a circular dated 12th July, 2019 giving clarificatory instructions as regards Section 308 of the said Act. The said circular issued is under the order of the Hon'ble Governor and has a binding force as on date and as on the date when the impugned order was passed by the Collector. It is submitted that it cannot be said that the Collector ought not to take cognizance of the complaint submitted by any person. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of the said circular.(o) There is no ground raised in the writ petition that the Chief Officer did not submit the report within a period of 3 days from the date of receipt of the resolution as contemplated under Section 308 of the said Act and thus Collector ought not to have passed the impugned order. In any event, the said condition prescribing for 3 days time in Section 308 ought to be declared as 'directory' and not 'mandatory'. If the said provision is held mandatory, it would make the provision nugatory. The report of the Municipal Administration and the unanimous resolution passed on 28th February, 2020 has to be read in its entirety which would reveal that the same is unanimous and is justiciable, insofar as the same terminates the contract awarded to the petitioner.(p) The petitioner has failed to pay salary to its employees for 8 to 9 months who were working for the project in issue. The said employees have filed complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ichalkaranji. The respondent was served with notice in the said proceedings by the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 7th August, 2018. The respondent was also served with notice by Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax about the default committed by the petitioner in making payment of sales tax. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax had requested the Municipal Council to recover the amount from the bill submitted by the petitioner towards the work. The petitioner is thus not in a position to complete the project even otherwise. Even Kurundwad Municipal Council who had awarded a contract to the petitioner for Water Supply Scheme of the said Municipal Council has blacklisted the petitioner and has taken decision to cancel the contract awarded to the petitioner, which is subject matter of another writ petition filed by the petitioner.(q) The period of extension granted to the petitioner by resolution dated 31st December, 2019 has already expired on 30th June, 2020. This Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot re-write the contract nor create a new contract. Even if this Court sets aside the order dated 10th February, 2020 and the resolution dated 28th February, 2020 passed by the Municipal Council, only the said resolution dated 31st December, 2019 may be restored. The said extension was even otherwise granted to a non-existent entity i.e. the petitioner J.V. The said resolution dated 31st December, 2019 itself was illegal. The order passed by the Collector as well as the resolution passed by the Municipal Council are in the interest of Municipal Council and Public interest. If by setting aside any order, any illegal order is going to be restored, the Court shall refuse to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction in such circumstances.(r) Even if resolution dated 31st December, 2019 is treated as in existence, no specific performance or relief can be granted of the said resolution as time to complete the work has expired on 30th June, 2020. Neither this Court has any authority to grant extension nor any such prayer is made in the petition. It is the prerogative of the Council to grant extension of contract and is not within the powers of this Court. Even otherwise in the peculiar facts of this case, considering the interest of justice, private interest cannot be prevail over public interest.(s) The petitioner has not completed the work within the time stipulated in the original tender and this default continued despite giving extensions till the decision of cancellation of contract is taken. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court shall not exercise its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of such gross defaulter. Work of laying down under ground drainage pipeline and construction of STP is totally different and not connected to each other. The issue raised about the alleged non compliance of Section 81(15) has not been raised in the writ petition but has been advanced only across the bar. The petitioner shall not be allowed to raise this issue for the first time across the bar.(t) Clause 45 of the Tender document provides that redressal of the dispute by referring the matter to the Court of Law subject to Hatkanagale jurisdiction only. The Writ Petition, thus, filed by the Petitioner invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. In view of Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act an injunction cannot be granted if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any infrastructure project or interfere with the continued provision of relevant facility related thereto or services being the subject matter of such project. The contract awarded to the Petitioner was an infrastructure project which was being implemented in the largest interest of public. Any interference with the decision of the Municipal Council to terminate the contract of the Petitioner and to blacklist the Petitioner would amount to an injunction against the implementation of the infrastructure project which is not permissible in law.(u) It is the case of the Petitioner itself in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 4096 of 2020 that the impugned order dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Collector was on the basis of report submitted by the Municipal Council. In support of this submission, they relied upon the Grounds (L), (M), (N) and (O) raised in the said Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 4096 of 2020. The Collector has made reference to the said report in the said order dated 10.02.2020 and also to the recommendations made by the Municipal Council in the report submitted before the Collector. The Collector has not passed the impugned order on the basis of the said complaint made by Mr. Bawachkar but has referred to the said complaint as a matter of fact. The Collector has passed the said order dated 10.02.2020 only on the basis of the report of the Municipal Council.(v) The Chief Officer has sent report to the Collector. The Collector has taken action on the basis of the said report of the Chief Officer and thus provisions of Section 308(1) of the Act had been already complied with. He distinguished the Judgment of this Court in the case of A. L. Waffri Agro Food Company, Balapur, Dist. Akola (supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner on the ground that the facts in the said Judgment and the facts in the case before this Court are different and thus the said Judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. In the said Judgment, the Collector had passed the order impugning therein only on the basis of application filed by a private party.(w) This Court cannot accept the suggestion of learned Senior Counsel that the Petitioner would complete the work within the time as may be provided by this Court or that this Court may appoint the Court Commissioner to monitor the progress of the work. The Petitioner has already committed several defaults in carrying out the work despite giving various extensions to the Petitioner till the decision of cancellation of tender is taken. The Petitioner was required to construct underground sewage pipeline under work throughout the entire city which includes pipeline, channels, chambers and then to construct trunk main which would connect to the STP. Non handing of possession of plot where the STP is constructed has nothing to do with laying of underground drainage pipeline. The Petitioner was required to complete the work of laying of underground drainage pipeline in respective areas of Ichalkaranji city independently. The Petitioner failed to carry out the said work within the original as well as extended period.(x) It is not permissible for this Court to monitor the work day to day even if any extension is granted by this Court to Petitioner for completing the balance work after setting aside the decision taken by the Municipal Council to terminate the contract awarded to the Petitioner and blacklisting the Petitioner. The Petitioner should be relegated to file a civil suit for damages.(y) Before considering the proposal made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner across the bar to complete the project within one year, if the Municipal Council complies with all its obligation, this Court will have to render a finding that the Municipal Council was totally responsible in illegally terminating the contract awarded to the Petitioner and blacklisting the Petitioner. No case is made out by the Petitioner before this Court demonstrating that the termination of contract and blacklisting the Petitioner was illegal in any manner. The Municipal Council is going to file a separate suit against the Petitioner for damages and other reliefs after the balance work left incomplete by the Petitioner is awarded to another contractor and after such balance work is completed.(z) Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the following Judgments in support of aforesaid submission:1) Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Ors. Vs. Gayatri Construction Company & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 172 2) P. T. Rajan Vs. T.P.M. Sahir & Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 498 3) Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. Vs. Jain Studios Ltd. (2006) 2 SCC 628. 4) Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 16. 5) Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale Vs. Navnath Tukaram Kakde & Ors., 2014 (6) Mh.L.J. 804. 6) State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. M. K. Jose, (2015) 9 SCC 433. 22.Submission made by Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare, learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.3 :- (a) The issue of limitation of 3 days in submitting the representation by the Chief Officer and of 30 days in deciding the issue of Collector would not arise in this matter. He strongly relied upon Section 308 (2) of the Act and submits that it is only the Municipal Council, which can be aggrieved of the decision of learned Collector, can exercise the remedy as provided in Section 308(3) of the said Act and not the Petitioner. The Municipal Council has accepted the order of the learned Collector in this case and has not challenged the said order. The Petitioner being a private party has no locus to challenge the order passed by the learned Collector by filing this Writ Petition.(b) The Petitioner has not raised any ground in Writ Petition about unamended section having been applied by the Collector or by the Municipal Council while passing the order or resolution respectively. The entire Petition proceeds on the premise that the action was taken by the Collector at the instance of the Chief Officer. Reliance is placed on Grounds L to O of the Petition in support of the submission that even according to the Petitioner, the action was taken at the instance of the Chief Officer and/or report of the Chief Officer by the Collector. This Court cannot allow the Petitioner to raise the issue as to where the period described in Section 308 (1) of the Act is mandatory or directory.(c) The learned Collector has made reference to the proposal/report of the Chief Officer in the impugned order and the said order is based thereon while forming an opinion that the resolution dated 31.12.2019 passed by the Municipal Council was required to be suspended. The power, thus, exercised by the Collector was in accordance with Section 308 as it stands as on date. He invited our attention to reference No.4 i.e. letter dated 20.01.2020 of the Chief Officer in the impugned order passed by the Collector. The Collector is empowered to entertain and take action even on a complaint of a third person or public spirited person/agency under Section 308 of the said Act. The learned Collector in any event has decided within a period of 30 days from the receipt of proposal/report from the Chief Officer. This Court cannot take hyper-technical view in view of the public interest involved in the matter. Court has to interpret the provisions of Section 308 considering the facts and circumstances in the given case.(d) The Collector has considered the detailed report regarding the lapses of the Petitioner and the losses suffered by the Municipal Council as set out in the report submitted by the Chief Officer on 17.01.2020, fact that work was completed by the Petitioner only to the extent of 50%, directions by the National Green Tribunal of action to be taken in the event the drainage work not being completed. The Collector has also considered that the Petitioner had failed to complete the work in spite of the extension granted by the Municipal Council for carrying out the work.(e) The period of 3 days and 30 days is mentioned in Section 308 of the Act will have to read harmoniously and in the context of intent of the provisions so made. Such period cannot be read as a mandatory period and has to be read as directory. In the fact situation a period of 3 days may not be feasible one and may destroy the object of Section 308 and also of execution directions. If the period prescribed under Section 308(1) is considered as mandatory, the role, object of the Section would be frustrated. The Court has to take a reasonable view in the matter. Section 81(15) of the Act will not come in play in the present situation. Merely because the learned Collector has suspended the earlier resolution, there is no embargo under Section 81(15) of the Act. The resolution passed by the Municipal Council is passed unanimously. The Court has to balance the public interest involved vis-a-vis private right and interest of the Petitioner-contractor. There are several disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into Writ Petition. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the Judgment delivered by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Govind Sapkal Vs. Collector of Dhule, 2003 (3) BCR 550 and in particular paragraphs 35 to 38 and 43. Learned Counsel adopts the other arguments advanced by Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for the Municipal Council.23.Submission of Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in rejoinder:-(a) The Collector has applied unamended Section 308(1) of the Act while passing the impugned order though the said provision was admittedly amended on the date of passing the impugned order. The Collector has acted contrary to and in gross violation of amended Section 308(1) of the Act. The Collector could not have exercised any power under amended Section 308(1) of the Act on the report of the Chief Officer. The said illegal order passed by the Collector was the basis for passing the resolution passed by the Municipal Council to terminate the contract awarded to the Petitioner and to blacklist the Petitioner.(b) Learned Senior Counsel distinguished the Judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Govind Sapkal (supra) on the ground that in this case the Petitioner has also raised grounds of malafides against the Municipal Council and the Collector. Since the Petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the Collector to pass such order, Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. The Petitioner will be directly affected by the decision of the Collector as well as of the Municipal Council and thus has locus to challenge those illegal order and resolution respectively for filing this Writ Petition.(c) Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner and submits that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had already withdrawn the earlier order thereby terminating the contract and blacklisting the Petitioner with liberty to take fresh action. The contract, thus, awarded to the Petitioner was continued. The Petitioner had already started working to the knowledge of the Municipal Council and applied for various permissions and for details to the Municipal Council which the Municipal Council failed to provide. The Municipal Council instead of permitting the Petitioner to continue with the work stopped the Petitioner from continuing the work.(d) Though by letter dated 20.11.2019 the Municipal Council had proposed to blacklist the Petitioner, admittedly the Municipal Council had passed a resolution on 31.12.2019 granting six months extension to the Petitioner to carry out the work on the ground that if fresh tender was invited by the Municipal Council, 30 to 40% increased amount will have to be paid to the new contractor which may be to the tune of Rs.30-40 Crores. The said resolution was passed by the Municipal Council in public interest. The remedy of the Municipal Council to withdraw the said resolution dated 31.12.2019 was by passing a fresh resolution after applying with the mandatory procedure prescribed in Section 81(15) of the Act within the time prescribed therein and not by Respondent through a complaint made by the co-opted Councillor before the Collector.(e) The learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to various photographs annexed by the Petitioner in support of the submission that the Petitioner had started the work. He also relied upon various correspondence in this regard placed on record. The said co-opted Councillor filed a false complaint with the Collector apprehending that the work would not be completed by the Petitioner and applied for stay of the resolution dated 31.12.2019. The Chief Officer filed a reply to the said complaint made by the co-opted Councillor before the Collector. The complaint made by Mr. Bawachkar could not be entertained by the Collector by exercising powers under Section 308(1) of the Act. The said complaint even otherwise was based on virtually false premise. The Municipal Council had on the other hand asked the Petitioner to either stop the work or to carry out the work at its own risk and costs.(f) It is submitted that even the said reply to the said complaint filed by the Chief Officer before the Collector, the Chief Officer had prayed for a direction against the Petitioner to complete the balance work. The said reply did not seek the suspension of the said resolution dated 31.12.2019. On the contrary the said reply would indicate that the financial condition of the Municipal Council was very bad.(g) Out attention is invited to the order dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Collector in support of submission that in the said order it is erroneously observed by the Collector that there was no progress in any work done by the Petitioner in last 30 days. Even according to the Municipal Council the Petitioner had already completed 60% work. The entire action on the part of the Municipal Council and the Collector was malafide against the Petitioner.(h) Learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to the subject mentioned in the agenda of the meeting proposed to be held by the Municipal Council and would submit that the meeting was proposed so as to make the members of the Council aware of the order passed by the learned Collector whereas the Municipal Council illegally decided to terminate the contract awarded to the Petitioner and to blacklist the Petitioner. The resolution passed by the Municipal Council is based on the order passed by the Collector.(i) The duty prescribed on the Municipal council and the Collector under Section 308(1) is coupled with an obligation first on the part of the Chief Officer to report and then upon Collector to decide the report. Thus such provisions prescribing for statutory duty with consequences for not applying with such statutory duty in the manner prescribed therein has to be considered mandatory and not directory. If the said provisions of Section 308(1) of the Act is to be read as directory, it would give unbridled power to the Chief Officer or Collector to do away the mandate or exercise the power to issue vested interest. He invited our attention to the objects and reasons reported and published in Government Gazette relating to the amendment to Section 308(1) of the Act in support of submission. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner distinguished the Judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the Municipal Council and by the learned Counsel for the Collector and relied upon for additional Judgments already referred to aforesaid.24. Mr. Jahagirdar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, states that his client is ready and willing to complete the balance work within one year subject to the Municipal Council complying with their part of the obligation by handing over the requisite drawing and documents etc., without claiming any escalation over the contract rates which were fixed in the year 2014 for the balance work. Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for the Municipal Council however did not agree to the suggestion of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner.Reasons and Conclusions:-25. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 and have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel. In our view following important questions arise for consideration of this Court which would be dealt with in the later part of this Judgment:(a) Whether the Writ Petition filed by the K.I.P.L. Vistacore Infraprojects J.V. through its partners Mr. Utkarsh Balasaheb Patil is maintainable or not.(b) Whether the Collector could have passed an order thereby suspending the Resolution of the Municipal Council dated 31.12.2019 following the complaint made by a co-opted Councillor or such power could be exercised only if the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council would have sent the copy of the Resolution to the Collector for suspension or prohibition of doing thereof upon compliance of the conditions set out in Section 308(1) of the Act amended w.e.f. 25.01.2018 within the time prescribed therein.(c) Whether the time prescribed in Section 308(1) of the Act amended w.e.f. 25.01.2018 is mandatory or directory.(d) Whether the circular dated 12.07.2019 issued by the State Government could modify the provisions of Section 308(1) of the Act or was only an executive instruction.(e) Whether the impugned Resolution dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Municipal Council resolving to terminate the contract awarded to the Petitioner and to blacklist it was after complying with the provisions of Section 81(15) of the Act read with Section 81(10) of the Act or not.(f) Whether this Court can grant any extension of time to the Petitioner to complete the balance work or not.26. We shall first decide the issue in this Writ Petition filed by K.I.P.L. Vistacore Infraprojects J.V. through its partner Mr. Utkarsh B. Patil is maintainable or not. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Municipal Council, M/s. Khillare Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and K.I.P.L. Vistacore Infraprojects J.V. who had formed Joint Venture and submitted their bid. The contract was also awarded to the said Joint Venture. It is the case of the Municipal Council that till 18.11.2019 though their existed Joint Venture between those two partners, however on and from 18.11.2019 M/s. Khillare Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. had withdrawn itself as a partner from the said Joint Venture. This fact was also confirmed by the Petitioner by addressing a letter to the Municipal Council that henceforth the balance work would be completed by the K.I.P.L. Vistacore Infraprojects J.V. alone. On the basis of this correspondence exchanged by the partners of the said Joint Venture with the Municipal Council, it was vehemently contended that the Joint Venture is no more in existence since 18.11.2019 and thus the Writ Petition is not maintainable.27. It is also the case of the Municipal Council that the said request of M/s. Khillare Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. withdrawing itself as a partner from the Joint Venture and the request of K.I.P.L. Vistacore Infraprojects J.V. to allow the said partner to continue the balance work was not accepted by the Municipal Council. It is, thus, clear that the Municipal Council has not accepted the withdrawal of M/s. Khillare Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. as a partner from the Joint Venture nor has permitted K.I.P.L. Vistacore Infraprojects J.V. to complete the balance work exclusively.28. A perusal of the cause title of the Petition clearly indicates that the Writ Petition is filed by K.I.P.L. Vistacore Infraprojects J.V. through its partner. In paragraph 3 of the Petition it is averred by the Petitioner that the Petitioner is Joint Venture Partnership which runs the business of Sewage Treatment Plant in various cities including Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur. The Writ Petition is verified by Mr. Harshapratik B. Patil an authorized signatory of the Petitioner. In our view since the Municipal Council has not permitted M/s. Khillare Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to withdraw from the Joint Venture as a partner and has not accepted the request of the other partner K.I.P.L. Vistacore Infraprojects J.V. exclusively to carry out the balance work, we are not inclined to accept that the said Joint Venture i.e. K.I.P.L. Vistacore Infraprojects J.V. has come to an end. Respondents could not produce any proof in support of this submission. The Writ Petition, thus, filed by K.I.P.L. Vistacore Infraprojects J.V. including various action on the part of the Respondents is, thus, maintainable.29. We shall now decide the issue based in Clause (b) aforesaid about the powers of the Collector under Section 308 of the Act. The unamended Section 308(i) prior to 2018 amendment reads thus:-“If, in the opinion of the Collector, the execution of any order or resolution of a Council or the doing of anything which is about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of a Council is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public or is against public interest or to lead to a breach of the peace or is unlawful he may be order in writing under his signature suspend the execution or prohibit the doing thereof.”Section 308(1) was amended by the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Amendment Act, 2018 w.e.f. 25th January, 2018. The amended sub Section 1 of 308 reads thus:-“If the Council or any Committee resolves contrary to provisions of this Act or any other law, or rules, bye-laws or the Government directions, then it shall be the responsibility of the Chief Officer to send it to the Collector for suspension of execution of such a resolution or prohibition of doing thereof, within the period of three days from the receipt of the said resolution. The Collector shall decide on such proposal within the period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such proposal. If it remains undecided within the said period, then the Collector shall submit the report thereof to the Director within ten days and the decision of the Director thereon shall be final. In such case, appeal against the order of the Director shall lie to the State Government.”A perusal of the unamended Section 308(1) of the Act indicates that the Collector had wide powers to suspend the execution or prohibit the execution of any order or resolution of a Council doing of anything which was about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of Council is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public or was against the public interest or to lead a breach of peace or was unlawful. It is not in dispute that the said provisions of Section 308(1) of the Act was amended by the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchyats and Industrial Townships (Amendment) Act, 2018 w.e.f. 25.01.2018.30. A perusal of the amended Section 308 of the Act clearly indicates that the Collector is empowered to suspend the execution of a resolution or prohibition of doing thereof passed by the Municipal Council or any Committee subject to following:(1) If the resolution passed by the Council or any Committee is contrary to prohibition of Act or any other law or rules, bye-laws or with Government directions.(2) It is responsibility of the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council to send it to the Collector for suspension of resolution or prohibition of doing thereof within a period of three days from the date of receipt of said resolution.(3) The Collector has to decide on such proposal within the period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such proposal.(4) If the Collector is unable to decide on such proposal within the period of thirty days from the receipt of such proposal, the Collector is bound to submit the report thereof to the Director within ten days.(5) The decision of the Director thereon shall be final. The Appeal against the order of Director lies to the State Government.31. The suo motu powers of the Collector to suspend the resolution under unamended Section 308(1) of the Act are taken away and substituted by the powers subject to compliance of various mandatory conditions and on compliance with and happening of the aforesaid conditions including the proposal required to be sent by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council to the Collector within the period of three days from the date of receipt of such resolution. A perusal of the amendment and considering the legislative intent and purpose of the amendment thereby substituting Section 308(1) by amended provisions clearly indicates that the Collector who could suspend the resolution or prohibit the execution thereof suo motu or on complaint of even a third party has been taken away with sufficient safeguards to prevent the misuse of such powers at the hands of the Collector including the time limit prescribed therein.32. The purpose and intent of the amendment in Section 308(1) of the Act is to rectify the mischief which the legislature intended to by denuding the Collector to act suo motu and prevent unscrupulous element and vested interest thereby obviating in unnecessary interference with the business of Municipal Council and indirectly controlling the day to day business and controlling powers of the Municipal Council. By amendment to Section 308(1) the legislature also sought to impose system of checks and balances by prescribing the necessity of suggestion of the Chief Officer that the circumstances set out in Section 308(1) exist. In our view the said provisions under Section 308(1) provides that various mandatory conditions to be specified before the decision of the Municipal Council or Committee can be interfered with by the Collector. The said provisions of Section 308(1) as amended is absolutely clear and does not warrant any other interpretation. The Court has to interpret such provision as it reads by applying the principles of golden rule of interpretation. Since the stages prescribed in the amendment provides for consequence for non compliance even in respect of every step required, such provision cannot be construed as directory.33. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to deal with provisions of Section 81(10) and 81(15) of the Act which deals with the procedure required to be followed in regard to the meetings of Council. Section 81(1) prescribes the provisions which are required to be observed mandatorily with respect to the meetings of a Council. Section 81(10) clearly provides that no business can be transacted and no proposition can be discussed at any meeting unless it had been mentioned in the notice convening in the case of special meeting in the written request for such meeting except with the permission of Presiding Officer. It is further made clear in these provisions that such permission of the Presiding Authority shall not be given in the case of motion or proposition to modify or cancel any resolution within three months after passing thereof.34. A perusal of Section 81(15) clearly provides that no resolution of a Council can be modified or cancelled within three months after passing of such resolution unless a resolution supported by not less than of total numbers of Councillors and is passed at the meeting and that also such notice is given in accordance with Section 81(4) of the Act. Such notice shall also set forth the resolution which is proposed to be modified or cancelled at such meeting and the motion or proposition from the modification or cancellation of such resolution. Section 81(4) prescribes the time within which a notice can be issued for an ordinary meeting, a special meeting etc. It is, thus, clear that compliance of Section 81(4) and the conditions set out in Section 81(15) for setting forth fully the resolution which it is proposed to be modified or cancelled at such meeting is mandatory.35. A conjoint reading of Section 308(1), Section 81(10) and Section 81(15) of the Act makes it clear that for seeking suspension or prohibition of a resolution passed by a Municipal Council or by Committee if the contingencies prescribed under Section 308(1) are satisfied, it is a responsibility of Chief Officer to produce such resolution within three days from the date of getting copy of such resolution to the Collector for suspension or prohibition from acting upon such resolution. The Collector obviously has no power to modify or set aside such resolution passed by the Municipal Council or the Committee thereof. On the other hand the Municipal Council itself can modify or cancel the resolution passed earlier however subject to compliance of the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 81 (15) read with Sections 81(10) and 81(4).36. In our view, if the Chief Officer is unable to comply with his duty and responsibility though the conditions set out in the first part of Section 308(1) are satisfied within the time of three days prescribed under Section 308(1), the powers of the Municipal Council to modify or cancel its earlier resolution in the manner prescribed under Section 81(15) read with Section 81(10) are not taken away and can be still exercised if the contingencies prescribed therein and the mandatory conditions therein are complied with. Both these provisions have to be construed strictly and have to be construed on the plain reading thereon.37. We will now consider in the facts of this case whether the Collector could have suspended the resolution dated 31.12.2019 on the complaint filed by a co-opted Councillor and in spite of fact that the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council had not applied for suspension of the said resolution within the time prescribed under Section 308(1). We will also consider the submissions made by both the parties whether in the facts of this case whether those contingencies set out in Section 308(1) upon appearing of which the Chief Officer was responsible to submit a proposal to the Collector for suspension or prohibition of the said resolution dated 31.12.2019 had arising at all in the facts and circumstances of this case.38. It is an admitted position that on 31.12.2019 the Municipal Council had passed a resolution bearing No. 180 thereby granting extension of six months to the Petitioner for completing the work subject to few conditions. On 10.01.2020 Respondent No.4 a co-opted Councillor made a complaint to the District Collector suggesting that a resolution dated 31.12.2019 passed by the Municipal Council shall be suspended. Admittedly the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council did not submit the said resolution dated 31.12.2019 to the Collector for seeking suspension thereof or to prohibit the execution thereof independently. The Chief Officer had only filed reply to the said complaint dated 10.01.2020 on 21.01.2020. In our view the learned Collector could have taken decision to suspend the resolution dated 31.12.2019 or not only if the Chief Officer would have applied for suspension of the said resolution within three days from the date of obtaining copy of the said resolution dated 31.12.2019 and that also subject to existence of the contingencies set out in first part of Section 308(1) and not otherwise. After amendment to Section 308(1) w.e.f. 25.01.2018, the District Collector could not have taken any decision suo motu on the complaint of said co-opted Councillor purportedly applying for suspension of the resolution under Section 308(1). The responsibility of the Chief Officer to send a copy of such resolution to the Collector for suspension within the mandatory period prescribed therein could not have been substituted by a private complaint made by a co-opted Councillor. We are, thus, not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for the Municipal Council and Chief Officer and Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare, learned Counsel for the District Collector that the time prescribed under Section 308(1) was to be construed as directory and not mandatory or to accept their alternate argument that there was alleged substantial compliance of Section 308(1) by the Chief Officer or by the District Collector.39. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of A. L. Waffri Agro Food Company, Balapur, District Akola (supra) has construed the amended Section 308(1) of the said Act and has held that a private person cannot approach the Collector to challenge any resolution of a Municipal Council. The Collector having failed to take note of the amended provisions and exercised its jurisdiction on a complaint/application made by a private person is not permissible. It is held by this Court that as per the amended provisions only the Chief Officer can point to the Collector that any resolution passed by the Municipal Council or any of its Committee is contrary to the provisions of Act or any other laws, rules, bye laws or Government directions.40. It is not in dispute that in this case that the said complaint was filed by the co-opted Councillor on 08.01.2020 i.e. much after the amendment of Section 308(1) which contemplated the exercise of power of the Collector only upon the proposal of the Chief Officer for suspension of execution or prohibition of doing thereof and not otherwise. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned District Collector clearly indicates that the learned District Collector has proceeded with the said private complaint made by the co-opted Councillor and has suspended the said resolution dated 31.12.2019 proceeding on the basis and under an impression that his powers to suspend the resolution continues under amended Section 308(1) and totally ignoring the provisions of amended Section 308(1). It is clear that the learned District Collector has failed to take note of the amended provisions and passed an illegal order by exercising his so called powers under unamended Section 308(1) which provisions were admittedly amended much prior to date of the said complaint made by the co-opted Councillor and also on the date of impugned order. The principles of law laid down by this court in the said Judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case A. L. Waffri Agro Food Company, Balapur, District Akola (supra) applies to the facts of this case. We are not inclined to take any different view in the matter.41. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 that in the said alleged report dated 21.01.2020 submitted by the Chief Officer to the District Collector there was a prayer for suspension of resolution dated 31.12.2019 or that the same was in compliance with Section 308(1) is totally untenable and in any event is factually incorrect. A perusal of amended Section 308(1) clearly indicates that the Collector was empowered to suspend the execution or prohibit of doing thereof any order or a resolution of a Council doing of anything in his opinion such order or resolution or doing of anything which was about to be done or was being done by or on behalf of Council is causing or likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public or against public interest to lead a breach of peace or was unlawful. However the contingencies provided in the amended Section 308(1) to exercise the powers of the District Collector for suspension of execution of such resolution or prohibition thereof or doing thereof by a Council or any Committee can be exercised only if such resolution is contrary to the provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchyats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 or any other law or rules, amendment or Government directions.42. The contingencies set out in amended Section 308(1) and unamended Section 308(1) are different. Before any report is submitted by the Chief Officer to the Collector for seeking suspension of the resolution passed by a Council or any Committee, the Chief Officer has to form an opinion that any such contingency had arisen and not otherwise. The learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 upon a query raised by this Court as to which contingency in this case had arisen which could cause the Chief Officer to apply for suspension of execution of the said resolution dated 31.12.2019, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 suggested that the resolution dated 31.12.2019 was contrary to the Government directions. The learned Senior Counsel could not point out before this Court as to which of the Government direction was not followed by the Municipal Council while passing the resolution dated 31.12.2019 granting extension of six months time to the Petitioner to complete the balance work however subject to compliance of any condition.43. A perusal of the said resolution dated 31.12.2019 clearly indicates that the Municipal Council was of the view that the Petitioner had completed substantial part of the work and if any fresh tender would be invited by the Municipal Council, the Municipal Council which was already debt ridden, about 30-40% more amount will have to be paid to the new contractor for completing the balance work. In our view the District Collector could not have considered the happening of any contingencies even if any of the conditions prescribed under unamended Section 308(1) of the Act while suspending the said resolution dated 31.12.2019. The learned District Collector has exceeded his jurisdiction by suspending the said resolution dated 31.12.2019. The order passed by the learned District Collector is perverse and is without application of mind.44. In our view, contract awarded to the petitioner being of a commercial nature and both parties alleging delay and breaches on the part of each other, none of the precondition under amended Section 308(1) would stand attracted to the facts of this case.45. We shall now consider the submission of the learned counsel for the District Collector that 3 days time prescribed under Section 308(1) for submission of a report by the Chief Officer to the Collector for suspension of the resolution passed by the Municipal Council is directory or mandatory. A perusal of the order dated 25th September, 2018 passed by the learned District Collector which is one of the order which is subject matter of the Civil Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 4096 of 2020 which is also being disposed of by this order clearly indicates that the petitioner had approached the District Collector thereby requesting the District Collector to take an action on the application made by the petitioner under Section 308(1) of the said Act on the resolution passed by the Municipal Council on 31st December, 2019 thereby enforcing the penalty upon the petitioner while granting extension of 6 months time to complete the balance work. A perusal of the order dated 25th September, 2019 passed by the District Collector on the said application filed by the petitioner clearly indicates that the District Collector had rejected the said application on the ground that in view of the amendment to Section 308(1) of the said Act, only the Chief Executive Officer can file an application before the District Collector and that also within 3 days of resolution. The District Collector accordingly refused to entertain the said application filed by the petitioner on that ground.46. It is thus clear that in the said order the District Collector has rightly applied the amended Section 308(1) and held that he could have suspended the resolution passed by the Municipal Council only if the such application would have been made by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council and that also within 3 days from the date of passing of resolution. In our view, the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the Municipal Council and the learned counsel for the District Collector is thus ex-facie contrary to and in teeth of the order passed by the District Collector dated 25th September, 2018. The petitioner had admittedly applied for stay of the part of the resolution dated 31st December, 2019 under Section 308(1) before the District Collector. The District Collector rejected the said application filed by the petitioner for suspending the part of the said resolution however stayed the same resolution on the complaint filed by a private party. Learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and for the District Collector could not reconcile the two different stand taken by the District Collector and by applying two different yardsticks while passing two different orders in respect of the same resolution dated 31st December, 2019 passed by the Municipal Council.47. There is no substance in the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and by the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 that the petitioner had not raised any of these grounds on the issue of non-compliance of the provisions of the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 308(1) including the issue whether the time prescribed in the said provision is directory or mandatory or whether there was non-compliance of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 81(15) of the Act. These submissions are based on factual incorrect premise. The petitioner has specifically raised all such grounds in the aforesaid two writ petitions filed by the petitioner and have pressed all those grounds while advancing oral arguments before this Court. The learned counsel for the respondents have also dealt with those ground before this Court while dealing with the oral arguments made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.48. We shall now decide the issue whether by Government Circular dated 12th July, 2019 was by way of an executive instruction and whether provision of Act could be modified or not by such Government Circular. A perusal of the said Government Circular dated 12th July, 2019 clearly indicates that by the said Government Circular, the State Government has directly or indirectly sought to modify and/or amend the mandatory conditions prescribed under amended Section 308(1) by giving vide powers to the District Collector, which vide powers were taken away by amended Section 308(1) which is not permissible in law.49. Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v/s. M/s G.S. Dall and Flour Mills (supra) has held that the executive instruction cannot go against statutory provision so as to whittle down the effect of such provision. Supreme Court in case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) has held that administrative instruction cannot overwrite statutory regulations. The principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v/s. M/s G.S. Dall and Flour Mills (supra) and in case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) applies to the facts of this case. We are respectfully bound by those principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court. In our view, the Government Circular which is an executive instruction thereby modifying the mandatory conditions of amended Section 308(1) of the said Act cannot bind the parties and also this Court. We are not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

respondents that the said Government Circular was issued only to clarify the provisions of Section 308(1) duly amended. There is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner not having challenged the validity of the said Government Circular cannot be allowed to urge across the bar that such Government Circular is not binding. The reliance was placed by the respondents on the said Government Circular in the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents. Both the parties have urged before this Court their rival contentions on the effect of the said Government Circular.50. We shall now deal with the issue raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Municipal Council has not passed a fresh resolution on 28th February, 2020 only on the basis of the order dated 10th February, 2020 passed by the District Collector and that the said resolution dated 28th February, 2020 was passed unanimously by the Municipal Council. A perusal of the said resolution dated 28th February, 2020 passed by the Municipal Council clearly indicates that the said resolution is passed on the basis of the order dated 10th February, 2020 passed by the District Collector thereby suspending the resolution dated 31st December, 2019. Insofar second part of the said resolution dated 28th February, 2020 passed by the Municipal Council is concerned, in our view Mr. Jahagirdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the said resolution dated 28th February, 2020 passed by the Municipal Council was not in compliance with Section 81(15) read with Section 81(10) and Section 81(4) of the said Act.51. Though on 22nd January, 2020 and 30th January, 2020 notices for General Body Meeting to be held on 30th January, 2020 and agenda was moved by the respondent no.2 to terminate the contract awarded to the petitioner and to blacklist the petitioner, on 30th January, 2020 no resolution was passed to terminate the contract awarded to the petitioner as well as to blacklist the petitioner. On 10th February, 2020, the District Collector suspended the resolution dated 31st December, 2019. On 20th February, 2020 an agenda was published for the meeting of the Municipal Council scheduled on 28th February, 2020. The agenda No.10 clearly indicates that the said agenda was to apprise the Municipal Council about the order of the District Collector dated 10th February, 2020. Though there was no agenda for termination of the contract awarded to the petitioner and also to blacklist the petitioner, in the said resolution dated 28th February, 2020, the Municipal Council passed a resolution proposing to terminate the contract and to blacklist the petitioner. In our view, since the order passed by the District Collector itself was totally illegal being in violation of Section 308(1) of the said Act, the Municipal Council could not have terminated the contract and could not have blacklisted the petitioner based on the order passed by the District Collector. In our view, even otherwise the said resolution dated 28th February, 2020 was not in compliance with the mandatory conditions of Sections 81(15), 81(10) and 81(4) and thus the termination of the contract and blacklisting the petitioner is totally illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside in its entirety.52. In our prima-facie view, there are various disputed questions of fact involved in this petition, insofar as the issue as to whether there was delay on the part of the petitioner in completing the work for which the petitioner was solely responsible or whether petitioner could not complete the work in view of the Municipal Council not having complied with its reciprocal obligations or on the issue whether the petitioner had commenced the work pursuant to the resolution dated 31st December, 2019 passed by the Municipal Council or not.53. This Court in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot render any factual finding on the disputed questions of fact. It would be open to the petitioner to pray for extension of time before the Municipal Council to carry out the balance work in view of the order passed by this Court setting aside the order passed by the District Collector and the resolution dated 28th February, 2020. Mr.Jahagirdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has already made a without prejudice proposal of his client to carry out the balance work within one year at the rates fixed under the contract in 2014 provided Municipal Council complies with its part of the obligation. The Municipal Council to decide such application if any made by the petitioner on its own merits without being influenced by the observation made and the conclusion drawn in the impugned order passed by the District Collector and the resolution dated 28th February, 2020 passed by the Municipal Council which decisions are quashed and set aside.54. We shall now decide the issue raised by Mr. Sakhare, learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that this Court cannot grant any specific performance or cannot re-write the contract or cannot grant extension of time to carry out the balance work. We make it clear that by this order, we are neither granting any specific performance of the contract awarded to the petitioner nor granting extension of time to complete the balance work nor re-writing the contract between the petitioner and the Municipal Council. We are thus not dealing with the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel for the respondents specifically on these issues being academic. We are also not expressing any views on the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties against each other on the financial condition of each other.55. Insofar as the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in case of Sanjay Govind Sapkal (supra) relied upon by Mr. Sugdare, learned counsel for the District Collector in support of the submission that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the order passed by the District Collector is concerned, in our view there is no merit in this submission of the learned counsel. The question for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court was whether the Collector could or could not exercise the powers under sub-section 1 of Section 308 (unamended) once an order passed by the Council had been implemented, executed or affected. The Full Bench of this Court in the said judgment after interpreting the unamended Section 308(1) held that the powers conferred by the legislature under sub-section 1 of Section 308 upon the Collector must be exercised only when one of the condition laid down thereunder is fulfilled. Existence of such a situation is a preliminary fact or condition precedent for the exercise of such power. Once the said condition is complied with, the section will operate independently and the power can be exercised without recourse to Section 308. The Full Bench of this Court held that whether in a given set of circumstances, such power could or could not be exercised or whether or not such powers can be exercised bonafide, is the question of fact and must be decided in the light of attenuating circumstances of the case.56. The Full Bench held that if the case of the employees was that the action taken by the Municipal Council was unlawful it was upon them to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. But once it has been held that Collector has power to press into service, Section 308(1) of the said Act and suspend an order or resolution of the Municipal Council, the matter must necessarily end there. In the said judgment, the Court had recorded a finding that the order passed by the Collector was within a power prescribed under Section 308(1) of the Act. The order passed by the Collector was subject to confirmation, modification or setting aside by the Director. In this case, the Municipal Council is not aggrieved by the decision of the District Collector. The petitioner in whose favour the resolution dated 31st December, 2019 was passed granting six months extension to complete the work was aggrieved in view of the suspension of the said resolution illegally by the District Collector and thereafter was further aggrieved by the resolution passed by the Municipal Council thereby resolving to terminate the contract awarded to the petitioner and to blacklist the petitioner. The petitioner thus could not approach the Director under Section 308(3) which remedy was available only to the Municipal Council. The petitioner being an aggrieved party against the order passed by the District Collector and by the resolution passed by the Municipal Council has locus to file the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment delivered by Full Bench of this Court in case of Sanjay Govind Sapkal (supra) is thus clearly distinguishable in the facts of this case and would not advance the case of the respondent no.3.57. We therefore pass the following order:-(a) Impugned order dated 10th February, 2020 passed by the District Collector, Kolhapur is quashed and set aside. Impugned Resolution No. 252 dated 28th February, 2020 passed by the respondent no.1-Council and impugned Communication dated 9th March, 2020 issued by the respondent no.2 in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 4077 of 2020 are quashed and set aside.(b) The petitioner would be at liberty to make representation to the respondent no.1-Council for extension of time to complete the balance work. If any such representation is made by the petitioner to the respondent no.1-Council, such representation shall be decided in accordance with the law and on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made and the conclusion drawn in the impugned order dated 10th February, 2020 passed by the District Collector, Kolhapur and in the impugned Resolution No. 252 dated 28th February, 2020 passed by the respondent no.1-Council and in the impugned Communication dated 9th March, 2020 issued by the respondent no.2 expeditiously.(c) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. Interim Application No. 1 of 2020 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.(d) There shall be no order as to costs.
O R