JUDGMENT

Anil S. Kilor, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner who had participated in a tender process relating to work of providing, installing, commissioning and testing of pumping machinery for Chikalthana feeder at Water Treatment Plant (WTP), Waluj, Aurangabad, was declared disqualified, the said disqualification is under challenge in the present petition.

3. Brief facts leading to the present petition are, that the MIDC has developed Industrial areas around Aurangabad city and to provide water supply to these Industrial areas, the MIDC has commissioned one 72 MLD Centralised water supply scheme at Waluj MIDC. The scheme has Raw water works/ jack well located at Brahmagavan and WTP at Waluj MIDC. From pump house at WTP Waluj, pure water is pumped to various Industrial areas through various feeders.

4. The MIDC has provided 3x350 HP pumps for pumping pure water to Aurangabad, Chikalthana and Shendra Industrial areas. Due to the increased water demand, on the said feeder, the MIDC has proposed replacement of old machinery with new pumping machinery.

5. In order to execute the work, tenders were invited from eligible bidders. The scope of work includes providing, installing, commissioning and testing of pumping machinery for Chikalthana feeder at WTP, Waluj.

6. The petitioner being interested and claiming to be qualified in all respect, filled in tender form along with requisite documents.

7. Other than the petitioner four more bidders had submitted their respective tenders. In technical bid the petitioner was declared disqualified on the ground that the petitioner company had not submitted the bid capacity as certified by Chartered Accountant and the Technical Data Sheet was not as per the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT).

8. Out of the total five bidders including the petitioner, three bidders were considered as qualified. The legality and correctness of the disqualification of the petitioner is called in question by the present petition.

9. Heard the learned counsel Shri Chapalgaonkar for the petitioner, Shri Chate for State and Shri Dande for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 MIDC and concerned authorities.

10. Shri Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the first ground of disqualification, that the petitioner company had not submitted the bid capacity as certified by Chartered Accountant, is concerned it is necessary to point out that, in Notice Inviting Tender no such requirement of certification of bid capacity by Chartered Accountant was prescribed.

11. He submits that the petitioner company has submitted the requisite documents indicating the bid capacity of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the condition of certification of such document from Chartered Accountant is not the part and parcel of tender notice. The required document is only the certificate from Engineer/ In charge.

12. Shri Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for petitioner further argues that as far as the second ground for disqualification that Technical Data Sheet is not as per the Notice Inviting Tender, is concerned, in the original notice inviting tender there was no such clause or requirement of technical data to be submitted in any particular format. He draws our attention to the fact that subsequently tender notice was amended and this condition has been incorporated which reads thus:

"All technical documents for pumps, motors, all equired pump curves etc. to be submitted in envelop no. 1 and needs to be duly stamped signed from the manufacturers only"

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even reading of the amended clause will itself make it clear that, such information need not be in any prescribed/ particular format.

13. He submits that the petitioner company had submitted all technical documents for pumps, motors, all required pump curves, etc. in envelop no. 1. He has invited our at