1 16-WP-141-23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 141 OF 2023 SHREE SWAMI SERVICES LABOUR AND SECURITY CONTRACTOR THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Ms. Anjali Dube (Bajpai), Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Respondent/State Mr. Sandesh V. Hange, Advocate for Respondent No.3 ... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Leave is granted to correct the nomenclature of respondent No.3. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 19/09/2022 passed by respondent No.3 Chief Officer of Jamner Municipal Council, thereby blacklisting it and forfeiting deposit of earnest amount and security amount. 3. Admitted facts on record are that, the petitioner was allotted contract of collection of garbage in Jamner. Agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.3 and on 02/08/2021 work order was issued to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner started work in the area of Municipal Council of Jamner. Petitioner has done his work in the month of October, 2021 and SVH 2 16-WP-141-23.odt November, 2021 and submitted bills for the work done. Inspite of repeated persuasion on the part of petitioner, respondent No.3 did not release the payment of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.5473/2022. By order dated 22/06/2022, this Court directed respondent No.3 to decide the representation of petitioner observing that, “if any dispute arises as regards the quantum of money to be paid to the petitioners, they are at liberty to institute civil suits before the competent civil courts for seeking recovery of unpaid amounts”. Pursuant to the said direction, the impugned order is passed. 4. Heard learned advocate for petitioner, learned AGP for State and learned advocate for respondent No.3. 5. Respondent No.3 has heavily relied on the earlier order passed by this Court on 22/06/2022, which is quoted hereinabove. He submits that there were complaints against the petitioner and he himself stopped work of collecting garbage. The impugned order was, therefore, necessitated. He, thus, tried to justify the impugned order. 6. So far as the contentions of respondent No.3 in respect of alleged complaints against the petitioner are concerned, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the said contention. This Court had directed respondent No.3 to decide the representation of SVH 3 16-WP-141-23.odt petitioner. While deciding the representation, respondent No.3 has erroneously proceeded to pass the impugned order, thereby forfeiting security deposit of petitioner and blacklisting it. 7. Indisputably, no opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner while passing the impugned order. Since there is nothing on record to justify the impugned order, the same is unsustainable in the law and facts of the present case. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 19/09/2022, is quashed and set aside. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to above extent. (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) SVH