Bombay High Court
NANASAHEB AJABRAO NIKAMversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court held that, given the prayer clause and applicable time limits, Respondent No. 2 must decide the revision application within three months and the stay application within three weeks.
Summary
Nanasaheb Ajabrao Nikam filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking expeditious disposal of a revision application (No. 02/2026) and a stay application pending before Respondent No. 2. The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 5, which filed an appeal (No. 02/2025) seeking cancellation of an extended tender time, lacked locus standi to challenge the petitioner. The appeal filed by Respondent No. 5 was allowed, prompting the petitioner to file the present revision. The court examined the prayer clause and the statutory time limits applicable to such proceedings. It directed Respondent No. 2 to decide the revision application within three months and the stay application within three weeks. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed with the specified directions.
Issues considered
- Whether Respondent No. 5 had locus standi to file an appeal against the petitioner in the tender matter
- Whether the court can impose a time‑bound order for the disposal of the pending revision and stay applications
Subjects
- writ petition
- revision application
- stay application
- tender
- locus standi
- expeditious disposal
- court direction
Judgment
1 930WP3699.2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
930 WRIT PETITION NO. 3699 OF 2026
Nanasaheb Ajabrao Nikam
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
...
Ms Laxmi R. Thakur h/f Mr. Arun S. Shejwal - Advocate for the
Petitioner
Mr. A. M. Phule - AGP for the State
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATED : 08TH APRIL, 2026
PER COURT : -
1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner.
2. The Revision Application No. 02/2026, along with the Stay
Application preferred by the Petitioner, has been pending before
Respondent No. 2 since January 2026. It is stated by the Petitioner that
Respondent No. 5 had filed Appeal No. 02/2025 before Respondent No.
3 seeking cancellation of the extended tender time granted to the
Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No. 5 has no locus
standi to file the said appeal before Respondent No. 3 against the
Petitioner. The said appeal filed by Respondent No. 5 came to be
allowed, and the Petitioner has now preferred a revision before
Respondent No. 2. Considering that the matter pertains to a tender, the
Petitioner prays that the Revision Application be expedited.
2 930WP3699.2026.odt
3. The learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
4. Taking into consideration the prayer clause and the time
limits required to be adhered to, we dispose of the Writ Petition by
directing Respondent No. 2 to decide Revision Application No. 02/2026
within a period of three (3) months from today, or to decide the Stay
Application therein within a period of three (3) weeks from today.
[HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
SG Punde
Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/04/2026 19:34:42
Checking your session…