Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
VIBHA KANKANWADI, S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR
H. P. Ghumare, Through it’s Proprietor, Haridas s/o Pralhad Ghumare – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
S.G.Chapalgaonkar, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties at admission stage.
2. The petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby impugning the communication/notice dated 25.9.2023, by which petitioner alongwith two other lowest bidders were invited for negotiations by tendering authority i.e. Respondent no.4. However, during pendency of this petition, respondent no.3 passed further order dated 17/20.11.2023, disqualifying the petitioner, although he was already declared qualified and L-1 bidder. The petitioner has incorporated challenge to said communication by amending the writ petition.
3. The petitioner contends that, he is a reputed contractor and since year 2021 undertakes the work of water supply through Tankers under various contracts. Respondent No.3 - District Collector, Beed had floated E-Tender notice dated 13.7.2023 inviting bids for supply of water Tankers in District Beed. As per Schedule, the petitioner submitted his bid alongwith requisite documents. In all 8
The main legal principle established is the authority of the Tendering Authority to waive non-essential tender conditions and the requirement for rational decision-making in such matters.
The court ruled that tender documents clearly required prices quoted to exclude Goods and Services Tax (GST), affirming that ambiguity in contractual terms did not exist.
The court affirmed that compliance with the mandatory requirements outlined in the NIT is essential for eligibility in the bidding process.
Tendering Authority's interpretation of its own tender conditions prevails; suppression of material facts results in disqualification.
The court established that experience requirements in tender conditions are valid under the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, ensuring fair competition.
Public procurement processes must adhere to principles of transparency, fairness, and natural justice, especially in communicating reasons for bid disqualifications.
The court upheld the validity of the tender process, confirming that the petitioner complied with all requirements while the respondent failed to do so, thus reversing the High Court's decision.
Public authorities must ensure fairness and non-arbitrariness in tender processes, adhering to established eligibility criteria.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article