Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 486
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.
Hanwant Singh J Ranavat - Appellant
Vs.
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai - Respondent
Writ Petition (L) No. 3757 of 2018
Decided on : 08-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
S.U. Kamdar, Adv., Birendra Saraf, Adv., Chirag Kamdar, Adv., Bipin Joshi, Adv., Prayag Joshi, Adv., Rajiv Chavan, Adv., Priyanka Chavan, Adv., Sumangala Yadav, Adv., Neelam Kaintura, Adv., Vandana Mahadik, Adv., Milind Sathe, Adv., Simil Purohit, Adv., Faran Khan, Adv., Suraj Iyer, Adv., Ganesh & Co, Adv.
The interpretation of the E-tender notice and the eligibility criteria was central to the court's decision, emphasizing the larger public interest and consistency in the interpretation.
Headnote:
E-tender - Interpretation of Eligibility Criteria - [Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai] - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - [Section 2, Section VI] - The court upheld the interpretation of the E-tender notice by the Municipal Corporation, ruling that the classes of contractors, including contractors of repute, are not excluded merely because they are not registered with the Municipal Corporation or with the Central/State Government. The stipulation sub-serves the larger public interest, and the interpretation is consistent and should be upheld. The court found that the interpretation of the E-tender notice was not arbitrary, perverse, or malafide, and therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Government Civil Contractor, challenged the decision of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and its interpretation of the E-tender notice dated 26th September, 2018, regarding the works of minor repairs to the existing bridges in G/North Ward of City Division N. The petitioner claimed that the MCGM allowed an unregistered contractor to participate in the tender process, which was contrary to the eligibility criteria.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the interpretation of the E-tender notice by the MCGM, ruling that the classes of contractors, including contractors of repute, are not excluded merely because they are not registered with the Municipal Corporation or with the Central/State Government. The court found that the interpretation was consistent and should be upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the eligibility criteria in the E-tender notice and whether the MCGM's decision to allow an unregistered contractor to participate in the tender process was in accordance with the eligibility criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the E-tender notice and the finding that the stipulation sub-serves the larger public interest, and the interpretation was consistent and should be upheld.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the interpretation of the E-tender notice by the MCGM.
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
1. We have heard both sides.
2. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is carrying on business as Government Civil Contractor under the name and style “M/S Jain Construction Company”, has challenged the decision of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (For short, “MCGM”) and particularly, its interpretation of the E-tender notice dated 26th September, 2018, copy of which is at Exhibit ‘A’ of the paper-book.
4. The relief claimed in terms of prayer clause (a) of this writ petition reads as under:-
“(a) this Honourable Court be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or such other writ, directions, orders be passed, calling upon the Respondents to produce records and proceedings of E tender notice dated 26.09.2018 at Exhibit A annexed hereto, bearing No. NO.CHE/6464/BRIDGES UNDER BID NO.7100133964 FOR THE WORKS OF MINOR REPAIRS TO THE EXISTING BRIDGE IN G/NORTH WARD OF CITY DIVISION N, and after perusing the same and after going through the validity, legality and propriety thereof, this Honourable Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to disqualify HMV Associates and complete the tender process in accordance with law.”
5. The few facts necessary to understand the controversy are as follows.
6. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the first respondent to this writ petition, through its Chief Engineer (Bridges) City North had invited the bids. The petitioner claims that he is reputed Government Contractor. He has experience of last fifteen years of having undertaken and successfully completed works of building and road repairs for Municipal Corporations as also Government and Semi Government organisation. The petitioner says that he has carried out such work also for the second respondent.
7. The Municipal Corporation has designated different classes of contractors and as stipulated in para 5, running pages 3 and 4 of the paper-book.
8. It is claimed that the Chief Engineer (Bridges) invited tenders for works of minor repairs to the existing bridges in G North Ward of City Division II. A copy of this tender notice is at Exhibit ‘A’ to the petition. It is stated that the bid document comprises of several sections. In terms of the procedure, for submission of bid, the petitioner submitted packets ‘A’ and ‘B’ within stipulated time i.e. on or before 11th October, 2018. The ‘A’ and ‘B’ packets were opened on 12th October, 2018. The ‘C’ packet was to be opened on 23rd October, 2018, but that was postponed. The petitioner in paras 11 to 13 of this writ petition urges as under:-
“11. The scrutiny report of A, B packets was prepared by the Executive Engineer (Bridges) City N on 25.10.2018. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “G” is the copy of the scrutiny report dated 25.10.2018. The scrutiny report reveals that A and B packets were opened on Line on 12.10.2018. 3 Bidders participated which include the Petitioner and HMV Associates as well as New India Construction Company. During the scrutiny, it is revealed that the Petitioner and New India Construction Company, complied with the requisitions for the submission of A and B packets. It is revealed that the bidder, HMV Associates, was not registered contractor either with Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai or any government or semi government authorities. HMV Associates misrepresented that they are registered with PWD. During the scrutiny it was confirmed that HMV Associates is not registered with PWD. The scrutiny report further refers to instance of one Sai Project who have been awarded the work though not registered with any government or semi Government or Municipal corporation of Greater Mumbai authorities. The Executive Engineer (Bridges) sought approval of higher authorities for holding HMV Associates as eligible contractors, despite they being not registered contractor
