Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 733
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
A. S. Chandurkar, M.W. Chandwani, JJ .
M/s Food Safety Services, through its Proprietor - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through it Secretary, Ministry of School Education & Sports and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2108 & 2269 of 2023
Decided On : 03-05-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate with Shri Kaustubh Kadasane
For the Respondent: Ms N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader, Shri D.V. Chauhan with Shri A.D. Choudhari
The cause of action for challenging the rejection of technical bids in a tender process arises from the decision of the Principal, which took place at Pune, and not from the mode of communication of such rejection.
Headnote:
Tender Process - Technical Bids - Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - [TENDER PROCESS] - [MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT, 1950, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000] - The court considered the territorial jurisdiction for entertaining the writ petitions challenging the rejection of technical bids in a tender process. The rejection of technical bids was communicated to the petitioners during a Zoom meeting held at Pune, even though the petitioners participated from Nagpur. The court held that the communication of rejection through the Zoom meeting did not give rise to any part of cause of action within the territorial limits of the Nagpur Bench. The court emphasized that the cause of action arises from the decision of the Principal to reject the technical bids, which took place at Pune, and not from the mode of communication of such rejection. The court declined to entertain the writ petitions on merits due to the lack of cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the Nagpur Bench.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the rejection of their technical bids in a tender process for imparting training under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme. The rejection was communicated to the petitioners during a Zoom meeting held at Pune, although the petitioners participated from Nagpur.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Nagpur Bench, as the rejection of technical bids was communicated during a Zoom meeting at Pune, and the cause of action arises from the decision of the Principal, which took place at Pune.
Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of technical bids communicated during a Zoom meeting held at Pune, where the petitioners participated from Nagpur, gave rise to a cause of action within the territorial limits of the Nagpur Bench.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the cause of action arises from the decision of the Principal to reject the technical bids, which took place at Pune, and not from the mode of communication of such rejection. The court held that the communication of rejection through the Zoom meeting did not give rise to any part of cause of action within the territorial limits of the Nagpur Bench.
Final Decision: The court declined to entertain the writ petitions on merits due to the lack of cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the Nagpur Bench.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In these writ petitions, challenge is raised to the Technical Summary Report holding the technical bids of the petitioners to be non-responsive thus preventing them from further participation in the tender process.
3. On 02.03.2023 the respondent no.2-Directorate of Primary Education, Pune floated an E-Tender inviting bids for allotting the work of imparting training to Cooks and Helpers under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme that is to be implemented under Pradhan Mantri Poshanshakti Nirman Yojana. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2269 of 2023 is a public trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 having its office at Mumbai. It claims to have operations in the entire State of Maharashtra with a Regional Office at Akola. Its technical bid has been held to be non-responsive under the Technical Summary Report dated 29.03.2023. Similarly, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2108 of 2023 is a proprietary firm having its Office at Bhandara, Maharashtra and claims to be interested in undertaking such work within the State of Maharashtra. Its technical bid has been held to be non-responsive under the same E-Tender process.
4. The respondent no.3 being the successful bidder has raised a preliminary objection to entertaining these writ petitions at the Nagpur Bench on the ground that no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of the Nagpur Bench.
Shri D.V. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 by inviting attention to the E-Tender document submitted that the Principal issuing the E-Tender notice had its Office at Pune. The bids were invited from Pune. Though online submission of bids and payment of deposit was permitted online, the relevant pre-bid meeting as well as consideration of the bids of all the bidders including the technical evaluation was undertaken at Pune. The work in question of providing training was to be carried out in the entire State by dividing it into eight divisions. Two bidders were to be selected and the work was to be distributed amongst them with regard to the eight divisions. The allotment of work was to be undertaken by the Director of Education (Primary), Pune. Since the entire decision making process was to be undertaken at Pune under the authority of the Director of Education (Primary), Pune and the fact that the bids of the petitioners were found to be non-responsive pursuant to such decision being taken at Pune, no part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Nagpur Bench. Referring to the averments in paragraphs 24-A to 24-C in Writ Petition No.2108 of 2023, it was submitted that only on the basis of the intimation given to the petitioners through an online Zoom meeting, the petitioner had sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Bench. Similar averments were made in paragraph 28-B of Writ Petition No. 2269 of 2023. Since the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2269 of 2023 had its establishment at Mumbai as per the relevant registration certificate and no part of cause of action having arisen here, there was no basis to file the writ petition at the Nagpur Bench. Merely because the petitioners uploaded their documents at Nagpur, the same would not be sufficient to confer upon them a right to invoke the jurisdiction at the Nagpur Bench. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 relied upon the decisions in Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Ltd. Versus Oil India Ltd. [2020 SCC OnLine Gau 4869], Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Versus Union of India & Another [(2004) 6 SCC 254], M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others [ILR (2011) VI Delhi 729], Oil and Natural Gas Commission Versus Utpal Kumar Basu & Others [(1994) 4 SCC 711], Rajasthan High Court Advocates’ Association Versus Union of India & Others [(2001) 2 SCC 294], Union of India & Others Versus
