Nagpur. As soon as there was a change of power in the state, the works and tenders approved by the then government on behalf of the new government were completely prohibited. Where there is an ongoing fight on the political scene regarding this running of the current government, there is also a court battle going on. Now after Savner MLA Sunil Kedar, now MLA Vijay Waddetiwar also petitioned the High Court and requested the court to issue the relevant orders. Judge Atul Chandurkar and Judge Vrushali Joshi ordered the two petitions to be joined together for a hearing after the case of the same challenge in both petitions was revealed. On behalf of the petitioner NB On behalf of Kirtane and the State Government, Public Prosecutor Anand Fuljhele presented the case.
Work orders were also issued
It is said in the petition presented by the MLA that during the management of the previous government several development works were approved for their constituencies. After making economic provisions, not only were their offers made, but work orders were also issued to the companies executing the corresponding works. But as soon as there was a change of power in the state, the new government completely banned all the works approved by the old government without any reason. In this context, the demands on the government were made many times inside the house and many times outside the house. But this government did nothing beyond the insurance. However, the work related to the development of the assembly constituency is stagnant. By stopping these public interest works, you are doing a disservice to the public. Therefore, the court was requested to issue orders to the defendants.
On Kedar’s petition, the court believes that the petitioner has presented 6 different departments of the state government as defendants. All these departments have been asked to issue orders independently. Petition number 9421/2022 is cited to issue a precautionary order. Wherein orders were issued on 9th November 2022 by the Bank of Aurangabad. Before proceeding in this context, it was said on behalf of the petitioner that work orders were issued for which development works and for which the bidding process was started, but the bidding process was halted, his indictment would be prepared for what that the court Granting the petitioner time, the hearing was adjourned.