Sarang V. Kotwal, J.

Rule. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Both these Petitions are filed by different Petitioners seeking similar relief against the same Respondents in these Petitions. Therefore, these Petitions are disposed of by this common Judgment and Order.

3. The Petitioners in these Petitions are challenging the tenders awarded to the Respondent No.4 for handling and transportation of food grains and allied services. In Writ Petition No.11011 of 2018, the contract was in respect of such services for Central Warehouse at Vashi, Navi Mumbai and in Writ Petition No.11278 of 2018, the contract was in respect of such services for Central Warehouse, Nanded. Both these Petitions are filed by the respective proprietary concerns through their Proprietors. The relevant dates for the tender processes for the subject-matters of both these Petitions are mentioned in the following paragraphs. The Petitioners were the lowest bidders for their respective tenders.

4. For warehouse at Vashi, the Respondent No.2 - Central Warehousing Corporation invited tenders vide e-tender notice dated 31/03/2018 through online e-tendering under two bids system from professionally competent and financially sound interested parties. Similar notice dated 31/03/2018 was issued for warehouse at Nanded. The Schedule for submission of the bids and opening of the bids were different and capacity of these two warehouses and the expected value of contract for these two warehouses were different. However, the eligibility criteria for participation was similar. Contentions were raised in respect of the eligibility criteria and other terms and conditions of the contract. The contentions raised by the Petitioners in both these Petitions were the same. As mentioned earlier, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.11011 of 2018 had submitted his bid for the contract for Vashi warehouse whereas the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.11278 of 2018 had submitted his bid for the warehouse at Nanded. Respondent No.3 is the Regional Manager of the Respondent No.2.

5. When the tenders were opened, both these Petitioners were the lowest bidders in their respective tender process. However, it was mentioned in the tender notice that as per the public procurement policy of Micro and Small Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as 'MSE'), since it was a non-divisible tender, an MSE quoting in the price band of L1 + 15% would be awarded full / complete work of tender considering the spirit of policy, bringing down price to L1 rate after negotiation, if any, by the MSE concerned. The Respondent No.4 had participated in the tender process as an MSE and their bid was found to be within the band of L1 + 15%. Therefore, after negotiation, the Respondent No.4 was awarded both these contracts. The contract for Vashi was awarded at the rate of 223% ASOR for a period of two years with effect from 05/11/2018 with the provision to extend the contract for further period of three months on same rates, terms and conditions at the discretion of the Respondent No.2 - Corporation; whereas the contract for Nanded was awarded at the negotiated rate of 45% ASOR for a period of two years with effect from 25/09/2018 with the provision to extend the contract for further period of three months on the same terms and conditions at the discretion of the Respondent No.2. The Petitioners have challenged the contract awarded to the Respondent No.4 in these two Petitions. On behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, Affidavits-in-Reply are filed opposing granting relief in these Petitions.

6. We have heard Mr. Prasad Dani, learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner in Writ Petition No.11011 of 2018, Mr. Sanjiv Sawant learned Counsel for Petitioner in Writ Petition No.11278 of 2018, Mr.Dharmesh Joshi, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.11011 of 2018, Ms. Uma Kshirsagar-Wagle learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.11278 of 2018, Mr.R. K. Sharma learne