Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Shirdi Thr Its Chief Ex. Officer vs. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary

Held

The Court allowed the application in terms of prayer clause (B). The reasoning was based on the fact that the Sansthan had put forth the prayer seeking permission to implement the resolution, and it was informed that the Chairman of the Ad-hoc Committee, the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar, had also accorded his approval. The Court found no impediment to granting the requested permission. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory body or a body constituted under court supervision seeks permission for an expenditure that has been approved by its internal committee and its overseeing authority (in this case, the Principal District Judge), and no opposing arguments are presented, the High Court may grant such permission. The operative direction was to allow the application as per prayer clause (B), permitting the implementation of the resolution.

Facts

The Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Shirdi (the Sansthan), the petitioner, sought permission from the Bombay High Court to implement a resolution passed by its Adhoc Committee. This resolution, dated July 3, 2023, accepted a quotation of Rs. 75 lakhs (inclusive of GST) from the College of Engineering, Pune (CEOP Technological University, Pune) for conducting a technical and cost audit of the New Darshan Queue Complex and New Educational Complex. The Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar, who chairs the Ad-hoc Committee, had also approved this resolution. The application was filed as a Civil Application within a Public Interest Litigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should grant permission to the petitioner to implement Resolution No. 434 passed by the Adhoc Committee on July 3, 2023, accepting a quotation of Rs. 75 lakhs (inclusive of GST) for technical and cost audit services. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought permission to proceed with the resolution, implying that the expenditure and the chosen service provider were deemed appropriate by the Adhoc Committee and its Chairman. No specific legal provisions were explicitly argued for or against, but the request was based on the internal decision-making process of the Sansthan and its oversight committee. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the State or other respondents. The Government Pleader appeared for the State, but their contentions, if any, are not detailed in the provided text.