SAI INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH HIS PARTNER GANESH ATMARAM MORE vs THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS — WP/1935/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226,14 AND 19. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM030048822026

Filing Number

WP/3650/2026

Filing Date

03-Feb-2026

Registration No

WP/1935/2026

Registration Date

18-Feb-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi , Hon'ble Shri Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar

Coram

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi , Hon'ble Shri Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar

Bench Type

Division

Category

SERVICE MATTERS OTHER THAN ID ACT AND RELATED ENACTMENT ( 35 )

Sub-Category

OTHER ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226,14 AND 19

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAI INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH HIS PARTNER GANESH ATMARAM MORE

    Adv. DESHPANDE AMIT SHRIKANT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

    Adv. SARVADNYA ROHIT S FOR R.NO 1,COPY SERVED ON GP AND UOI NO CAVEAT,Tambe Rahul A FOR R.NO. 3 AND 4,Tambe Rahul A FOR R.NO. 4,AGP FOR RNOS. 2. 1123

  2. 2.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

  3. 3.MAHARASHTRA STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY PVT. LTD.

  4. 4.MAHARASHTRA STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF ENGINEER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi,hon'ble Shri Justice Hiten S. VenegavkarView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/1935/2026 Court Decision: Both writ petitions dismissed. The High Court upheld the cancellation of the pond ash e-auction process and the issuance of a fresh tender notice. Key Reasoning: The court found that after receiving complaints, respondent authorities constituted an independent inquiry committee that identified serious procedural irregularities in the tender process (including improper eligibility scrutiny, unauthorized deviations, authentication issues, and record-keeping defects). The cancellation decision, based on this documented inquiry report, was neither arbitrary nor malafide. While highest bidders have no indefeasible right to contract award, they deserve fair treatment; however, where process integrity is genuinely compromised, re-tendering falls within permissible administrative discretion and serves public interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi,hon'ble Shri Justice Hiten S. VenegavkarView PDF

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    At 2.30 Pm CIVIL Side Matters

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi , Hon'ble Shri Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Due Admission CIVIL

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi , Hon'ble Shri Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi,hon'ble Shri Justice Hiten S. VenegavkarView PDF

  7. 12-Mar-2026

    Petitions For Admission - Fresh CIVIL Side Matters

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi , Hon'ble Shri Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar

  8. 05-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi,hon'ble Shri Justice Hiten S. VenegavkarView PDF

  9. 05-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 03-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/1935/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/1935/2026 Court Decision: Both writ petitions dismissed. The High Court upheld the cancellation of the pond ash e-auction process and the issuance of a fresh tender notice. Key Reasoning: The court found that after receiving complaints, respondent authorities constituted an independent inquiry committee that identified serious procedural irregularities in the tender process (including improper eligibility scrutiny, unauthorized deviations, authentication issues, and record-keeping defects). The cancellation decision, based on this documented inquiry report, was neither arbitrary nor malafide. While highest bidders have no indefeasible right to contract award, they deserve fair treatment; however, where process integrity is genuinely compromised, re-tendering falls within permissible administrative discretion and serves public interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case