ALMAS VAHATUK VA HAMAL SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT PARBHANIversusTHE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PARBHANI AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:25336-DB


                                                 {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 : 12th JUNE, 2026

                 ORDER :

                 1.     The Petitioner has put forth substantive prayer clauses “B”,

                 “C” and “D”, as follows:
                                       {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 19 th 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    23 rd

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 7 th 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 17 th

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 3 rd 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 6 th

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 29 th October, 2025, the

work order was issued to Respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 has

entered into an agreement with the Respondents on 27 th

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 24 th 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