Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. SHINDE, S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
P. Gopinath Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Department of Urban Development & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1182 of 2018
Decided On : 14-02-2018
For the Petitioner:P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel i/b. D.P. Palodkar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S.B. Yawalkar, Additional Government Pleader, M.V. Deshpande, R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel i/b. V.R. Dhorde, P.S. Dighe Advocates.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Disqualification attached to bid - Tender Notice - Quash - Issue writ of certiorari - Petitioner herein filed a Writ Petition bearing taking exception to decision of Respondent No-2 in holding Respondent No-3 as qualified for nature of work detailed in tender document and praying to issue letter of acceptance and to award contract in favor of Petitioner - In this Petitioner has in stated that to avoid repetition and for sake of brevity averments made and contentions urged in memorandum of said Writ Petition may be considered as part and parcel of this Writ Petition- Keeping in view said statement made of present Petition and to avoid repetition Court would focus our attention to subsequent stages/ contentions raised before Municipal Commissioner by Petitioner and order passed by Municipal Commissioner City Municipal Corporation on – Held, However fact that there are two different certificates with different contents one submitted before authorities of Surat Municipal Corporation and another submitted in present tender process - Court find considerable force in contentions raised by learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos-2 and 3 that when tender was floated in earlier round Petitioner was given an opportunity to negotiate however he failed to avail of said opportunity and therefore he should blame himself for not negotiating with Respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation at proper time regarding rates quoted by him - Fact that tender was floated for five times in past would negate contention of Petitioner that there is mala fide exercise on part of Respondent No.2 to favour Respondent No.3 - Admittedly rates quoted by Respondent No-3 are at lower side - Court also do not countenance attempt of Petitioner to raise objections for first time on November when admittedly financial bids were opened on - Writ Petition stands rejected
S.S. Shinde, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This Petition is filed with following substantive prayers:
"(B) The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby quash and set aside decision of respondent No.2 in qualifying the bid of respondent No.3) Annexure "C") in respect of the Tender Notice No. :NW/CMC/HEALTH/ET/7642/ 2017, issued by the respondent No.2, for "Doorto Door Collection and transportation of Municipal Solid Waste up to disposal site in Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation",
(C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby quash and set aside the Order bearing No.: NWCMC/Sanitation/16001/2018 dated 25.1.2018 passed by the 2nd Respondent in rejecting the objections submitted by this Petitioner regarding the technical and financial disqualification attached to the bid submitted by the 3rd Respondent,
(D) This Hon'ble High Court may be pleased issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby direct the respondent No.2 issue Letter of Acceptance and to award the contract in favour of the Petitioner in furtherance of the Tender Notice No: NW/CMC/HEALTH/7642/2017, issued by the respondent No.2 for "Doorto Door Collection and transportation of Municipal Solid Waste up to disposal site in Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation".
3. Earlier the Petitioner herein filed a Writ Petition bearing No.14388 of 2017 (P. Gopinath Reddy s/o P. Chinnathambi Reddy vs. State of Maharashtra and others), taking exception to the decision of Respondent No.2 in holding Respondent No.3 as qualified for nature of work detailed in the tender document and praying to issue letter of acceptance and to award contract in favour of the Petitioner. In this Petition, the Petitioner has, in Para-9, stated that to avoid repetition and for the sake of brevity the averments made and contentions urged in the memorandum of said Writ Petition may be considered as part and parcel of this Writ Petition. Keeping in view the said statement made in Para9 of the present Petition and to avoid repetition, we would focus our attention to the subsequent stages/ the contentions raised before the Municipal Commissioner by the Petitioner and the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation on 25th January, 2018. The Division Bench of this Court (CORAM:S.V. GANGAPURWALA & V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ.) disposed of the afore mentioned Writ Petition No.14388 of 2017, giving direction to Respondent No.2 to consider and deal with the objections raised by the Petitioner to the technical and financial capacity of Respondent No.3. It was made clear that apart from these two objections about the technical capacity and the financial capacity of Respondent No.3, no other objections need to be considered by Respondent No.2. Depending upon the decision of Respondent No.2 after considering the afore mentioned objections, further directions were issued in the operative part of the order.
4. Mr. P.M. Shah, learned senior counsel, to refresh the memory made elaborate arguments which were also advanced while arguing the afore mentioned Writ Petition No.14388 of 2017. As prayed by the Petitioner in the Petition, in order to avoid repetition, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the arguments advanced on behalf of the Petitioner while arguing the afore mentioned Writ Petition No.14388 of 2017, which are as follows:
"3. Mr. P. M. Shah, learned senior advocate for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 3 was not qualified to participate in the tender process as the respondent No. 3 lacked the necessary expe
