SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1704

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.V. GANGAPURWALA, R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
Shrishri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 6252 of 2021
Decided On : 20-09-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.H. Tripathi.
For the Respondent: A.R. Kale, M.S. Sonawane, D.B. Thoke.

Strict adherence to contractual terms and conditions is crucial in tender processes, and non-compliance can lead to rejection of the bid.

Headnote:

Tender Process - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Companies Act, 2013 - [TENDER PROCESS] - [CONSTRUCTION WORK] - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Companies Act, 2013] - The court discussed the legality of the tender process, the opening of technical and financial bids, and the requirement of submitting the declaration. The court found that the petitioner failed to comply with the tender conditions, leading to the rejection of their claim. The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to contractual terms and upheld the decision of the respondent authorities.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a private limited company, challenged the legality of the tender process for construction work of primary health centers. The petitioner claimed to be the lowest bidder but was held ineligible for the financial bid due to non-compliance with tender conditions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner failed to submit the mandatory declaration within the specified period, leading to their ineligibility for the financial bid. The court upheld the decision of the respondent authorities, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to tender conditions.

Issues: The issues included the legality of the tender process, compliance with tender conditions, and the eligibility for the financial bid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to contractual terms and upheld the decision of the respondent authorities to reject the petitioner's claim due to non-compliance with the mandatory declaration requirement.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court discharged the rule with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. Laddha, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to impugn the legality of the tender process followed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 which resulted in the petitioner being held ineligible for the financial bid, which act of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, according to the petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of express terms of tender document dated 19-11-2020. The petitioner, therefore, prays for a writ directing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to declare the petitioner as being eligible for the financial bid and further to declare the petitioner as the lowest bidder and therefore, entitled to the award of work under the said tender bid.

3. The petitioner is a private limited company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner is registered as a contractor with the Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. The respondent No. 4 published a Public E-tender Notice bearing No. 05/2020-21, on 19th November, 2020, inviting online percentage rate tenders from contractors registered with the Zilla Parishad for carrying out construction work of eight Primary Health Centers at various places within the Jalgaon district. As per the tender conditions, the bidders were required to fill up the online tender between 20-11-2020 and 14-12-2020 till 18.00 hours. The technical bid was scheduled to be opened on 16-12-2020. Clause 6 of the tender notice mandated five days gap between the opening of the technical and financial bids.

4. It is submitted by the petitioner that on 15-12-2020, the respondent No. 4 issued a Brief Tender Notice (‘BTN’ for short) extending the time line for submission of the bids to 17-12-2020 till 18.00 hours. On 17-12-2020 the petitioner submitted the bid for item No. 3 of the tender document i.e. construction of Primary Health Center, Main Building at Lohara, Taluka-Pachora, District-Jalgaon and also deposited a sum of Rs.3,90,500/- towards the Tender Fee and Earnest Money Deposit. The submission of the said bid online, was confirmed and tender I.D. number was also assigned to the petitioner’s tender. In the Public E Tender Notice, according to the petitioner, the estimated cost of the work of construction of Primary Health Center, Main Building at Lohara was shown to be Rs.3,54,78,559/-. The petitioner company quoted a sum of Rs.3,05,14,387/- which was 13% less than the sum stated in the Public E Tender Notice. As per the chart published, the lowest bidder i.e. respondent No. 5 Firm had quoted a sum of Rs.3,75,25,681.42/- which was higher by Rs.70,11,294/- as compared to the sum quoted by the petitioner company. As per the BTN, though the technical bids were to be opened on 21-12-2020, these bids were not opened on that day. In fact, these bids were opened on 29-1-2021, and the petitioner was held ineligible for the opening of its financial bid for the reason that the petitioner had not submitted the requisite declaration on his letter-head in the P.D.F. format.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that as per clause No. 6 of the tender document, there should have been five days gap between the openings of the technical and financial bids. However, the same was not followed and both the technical and the financial bids were opened on the same day, i.e. on 29-1-2021. Immediately thereafter, on 1-2-2021 the petitioner approached the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and filed an application, praying to accept the declaration and hold the petitioner company eligible to participate in the financial bid. Again, on 27-2-2021, the petitioner filed an application and repeated his request to accept the declaration and to hold him eligible for the financial bid. Thereafter, the petitioner also issued legal notice to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 calling upon them to accept the declaration and to hold th

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top