{1} wp13014-25.doc drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.13014 OF 2025 Almas Vahatuk Va Hamal Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Parbhani PETITIONER VERSUS The District Collector, Parbhani and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Amit Yadkikar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. N. S. Tekale, AGP for Respondent - State Ms.Pradnya Talekar for Talekar and Associates for Respondent No.5 ....… WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13138 OF 2025 Shalimar Vahatuk Va Hamal Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Parbhani Through its Chairperson APPLICANT VERSUS Almas Vahatuk Va Hamal Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Parbhani and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Ms.Pradnya Talekar for Talekar and Associates for Applicant Mr. Amit Yadkikar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 Mr. N. S. Tekale, AGP for Respondent - State ....… [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.] DATE : 12 th JUNE, 2026 ORDER : 1. The Petitioner has put forth substantive prayer clauses “B”, “C” and “D”, as follows: 2026:BHC-AUG:25337-DB {2} wp13014-25.doc “B. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned communications dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure-C) issued by the Respondent no.3, 07.10.2025 (Annexure-E), issued by the respondent no.4 and 17.10.2025 (Annexure-G) issued by the respondent no.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside. C. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to consider and decide the representations dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure-D) and 27.10.2025 (Annexure-H) made by the Petitioner in respect of allotment of works pertaining to the handling of food grains in Government Warehouses across Parbhani District D. The Respondent no.1 be directed to issue works/extensions to incumbent contractors by adhering to the Government Resolution dated 06.03.2025 issued by the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra more particularly by testing the qualifications and rates offered by the contractors as per the said GR.” 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner is a registered co-operative labour society, engaged in supply of labour and has been executing works of handling of food grains in the Government godowns in Parbhani, since 2005 till date. Even at present, the Petitioner is performing works of handling food grains at the Government Warehouses at Parbhani City, Manwat Tahsil and Selu Tahsil, situated in Parbhani district. 3. Respondent No.5 is also a registered Co-operative labour society, engaged in supply of labour for handling of food grains {3} wp13014-25.doc and is presently performing works in Jintur Taluka of Parbhani District, same like that of the Petitioner. However, the rates quoted by Respondent No.5 are more than the rates quoted by the Petitioner. On 22nd July, 2025, Respondent No.5, made a representation to the Hon’ble Minister for the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection with a request for allotment of works of 10 warehouses / godowns in Parbhani district, without the need for calling upon any tenders. The Hon’ble Minister, endorsed upon the said representation, directing it to be placed before Respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 by addressing a communication dated 19th September, 2025, conveyed that, Respondent No.1 being the competent Authority for allotment of works, in respect of handling of food grains in government warehouses, it would be appropriate to allot the said works to Respondent No.5, in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 6th March, 2023. 4. The Petitioner made a representation dated 23rd September, 2025 seeking allotment of work to the Petitioner, as the Petitioner is doing the said work since the year 2005 in Parbhani district. The Petitioner received reply dated 7th October, 2025 from Respondent No.4 – District Supply Officer, whereby the request of the Petitioner was turned down. {4} wp13014-25.doc 5. By letter dated 15th October, 2025, Respondent No.5 requested the Hon’ble Minister to issue work order in view of allotment of work to it. Respondent No.3, by letter dated 17th October, 2025, instructed Respondent No.1 Collector to issue work orders to Respondent No.5. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the allotment of work in favour of Respondent No.5, which, according to him, is against the Government policies. 6. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner, learned AGP for the State and learned Advocate for Respondent No.5, at length. Perused the record. 7. This Petition was heard for admission on 3rd November, 2025. On that day, the Petitioner tendered across the Bar, a letter dated 31st October, 2025 received from District Supply Officer, Parbhani. The Petitioner represented to the Court that, the work of handling food grains from all the Government godowns in Parbhani District has been given to one Shalimar Vahatuk va Hamal Sahakari Sanstha, Parbhani, as per Government Resolution dated 6th March, 2023. 8. The said letter was taken on record and marked “X” by this Court and relying on the submissions of the Petitioner, this Court granted status quo ante and directed the Respondents to {5} wp13014-25.doc maintain status quo prior to 31st October, 2025 till further orders. 9. Resolution No.5 has placed on record Petitioner’s communications dated 8th May, 2025, 14th May, 2025, 17th May, 2025 and 22nd May, 2025 addressed to the Collector showing inability to continue the work entrusted to it. It is further brought on record that, the Petitioner was granted work order on 3rd July, 2019. Respondent No.5 contends that since it was fulfilling the relevant criteria, mentioned in the Government Resolutions 6th March, 2023, a request was made to the Government that it is willing to continue with the work at the prevailing rates. The Government, after receipt of the report from the Collector that Respondent No.5 is eligible and entitled to continue the work and that the Petitioner has already shown its inability to carryout the work, allotted the work order to Respondent No.5. 10. In the Petition and on 3rd November, 2025, the Petitioner has suppressed the fact of issuing letters to the Collector showing its inability to carryout the work. We are not concerned with the reasons stated by the Petitioner for its inability to carryout the work. Fact remains that, the Petitioner has suppressed material facts and has secured interim relief. {6} wp13014-25.doc 11. It is a matter of record that, on 29th October, 2025, the work order was issued to Respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 has entered into an agreement with the Respondents on 27th October, 2025 and has also executed the bank guarantee. Respondent No.5 started work on 1st November, 2025. However, in view of the interim orders, the work of Respondent No.5 was stopped. 12. The Petitioner has candidly admitted that, the fact of its expressing inability to continue the work, is not disclosed in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of suppression of material facts. 13. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has tendered copy of the Government Resolution dated 24th April, 2026, to contend that now the Government has taken a policy decision to issue fresh tenders for all the godowns. 14. Be that as it may, for the aforestated reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated. Civil Application No. 13138 of 2025 is disposed of. [ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE JUDGE drp/wp13014-25.doc