The possession of door step delivery experience was a mandatory requirement for eligibility in the transportation contract tender process. The court emphasized the tendering authority's interpretation of the eligibility criteria and the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters.

JUDGMENT

SANDEEP V.MARNE, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, Petition is heard finally.

2. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner sets up a challenge to the letter dated September 30, 2021 issued by the Desk Officer, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Maharashtra holding the petitioner's bid ineligible. Petitioner seeks the direction for opening its financial bid for awarding contract for transport of food grains and other essential items to Fair Price Shops in Nanded district.

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business inter alia of transportation of food grains. Petitioner was awarded a contract for transportation of food grains in respect of Nanded district during January 2007 to September 2009 and the tenure of the contract was extended on same terms and conditions up to 15/3/2018. It is petitioner's case that the contract involved single phase transportation of food grains from base depots of Food Corporation of India (FCI) to the circle level depots identified for Nanded district. That contract did involve transportation of foodgrains to Fair Price Shops (FPS) and the concerned FPSs used to pick up and transport their own supplies from the circle level depots to their respective shops.

4. Government Resolution dtd. 15/1/2012 came to be issued laying down guidelines for awarding contracts for transportation of food grains and other essential items to FPSs. The Government Resolution envisaged two phase transportation viz. Phase-1 from FCI warehouses to government godowns and Phase2 from government godowns to FPSs. In respect of five circles in Mumbai-Thane area as well as in Municipal Corporations of Pune, Nashik, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Solapur, direct transportation from FCI warehouses to FPSs is required to be undertaken. Paragraph 5 provides for eligibility conditions for the bidders.

5. In pursuance of the Government Resolution dtd. 15/1/2021, Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued by the State Government inviting e-tenders for various districts. Condition No. QC-6 in clause 4 of the RFP provided eligibility criteria to bid in pursuance of the tender notice. Along with RFP, district sheet for Nanded came to be published providing the figures of quantity of work experience to be fulfilled by each bidder. Petitioner submitted his bid for Nanded district and in support, relied upon experience certificate dtd. 24/6/2021 issued by District Supply Officer, Nanded. Petitioner's bid has been held ineligible by impugned order dtd. 30/09/2021 citing the reason that the petitioner does not fulfill the experience criteria of second phase transportation. Petitioner is challenging the rejection of his technical bid in the present petition.

6. The petition is resisted by the State Government by filing affidavit in reply in which the exact reason for rejection of petitioner's technical bid is disclosed. It is stated that two phase transportation work was implemented in Nanded w.e.f. 16/03/2018 by adopting tender process in which the petitioner was not awarded contract. It is further stated that the petitioner does not have the experience of door step delivery which is mandatory under condition No. QC-6 of clause 4 of the RFP, so also under clause 5.2 of the Government Resolution dtd. 15/1/2021.

7. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. Sonawane would contend that petitioner fulfills work experience mentioned in the district sheet for Nanded published alongwith RFP. That as against the requirement of transportation of 1,61,656 MT disclosed in the district sheet, petitioner has transported 1,74,734.70 MT during 2015-2016 and 1,77,183.90 MT during 2016-2017. He would therefore submit that the petitioner meets the requisite eligibility criteria stated in RFP.

8. Mr. Sonawane would further contend that rejection letter gave the vague reason that petitioner does not fulfilling the experience in second Pha