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

2024 Supreme(Bom) 848

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Mangesh S. Patil, Shailesh P. Brahme, JJ.
M/s. Surendra Infrastructure (P) Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Water Resources & Command Area Development and ors. . – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 8525 OF 2024
Decided On : 06-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.P. Bhandari h/f Mr. Chaitanya S. Deshmukh Addl. G.P.
For the Respondent:Mr. A.R. Kale, Advocate Mr. S.G. Bhalerao Advocate, Mr. V.D. Salunke

IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that compliance with essential tender conditions is mandatory, and failure to meet these conditions justifies disqualification.

Headnote:

Tender - Disqualification - Essential Conditions - The court discussed the essential conditions for tender submissions, including the necessity of digital signatures and proof of I.P. address, interpreting them as mandatory for compliance. The court upheld the disqualification of the petitioner based on these provisions.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged his disqualification from a tender process for failing to provide a digital signature and proof of I.P. address, while also contesting the qualification of another bidder.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was disqualified for valid reasons as per the tender conditions, and the process followed by the authorities was not arbitrary.

Issues: Whether the disqualification of the petitioner was justified based on the tender conditions and whether the qualification of the other bidder should be scrutinized.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the essential conditions of the tender must be strictly adhered to, and the disqualification of the petitioner was justified as he failed to meet these requirements.

Result: The Writ Petition is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned A.G.P waives service for respondent no. 1. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been served but have not caused appearance. Learned advocate Mr. Bhalerao waives service for respondent no. 4 and the learned advocate Mr. Salunke waives service for respondent no. 5. At the joint request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner is challenging his disqualification at the technical evaluation of the offer submitted by him in respect of the E-tender notice no. 22/2023-24, floated by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 for the work ‘Restoration of canal section and lining in 47 km to 48 km of Paithan Left Bank Canal’. It is also challenging qualification of respondent no. 5 at the technical evaluation. It is seeking writ of mandamus against respondent no. 4 directing him to qualify it and to open its financial bid.

3. Mr. Bhandari would submit that the petitioner was disqualified primarily for two reasons; (1) absence of digital signature, and (2) failure to submit proof of I.P. address of the device from which the tender is uploaded. He would submit that both these shortcomings were easily curable. He would submits that the technical bids were to be opened on 28.03.2024. The financial bids were to be opened on 30.07.2024. Even if there were some shortcomings and defects, those were to be notified and the period of around three months between the date of opening of the technical bid and the financial bid was supposed to be used for getting such curable defects rectified. He would also advert our attention to the government resolutions dated 27.09.2018 and 17.09.2019, issued by the Public Works Department in this regard. According to him when it was a matter of public work, an opportunity ought to have been extended to the petitioner to cure both these defects. It is only for that purpose the period of 3 months intervening the date of opening of the technical bids and that of financial bids was kept. The approach of disqualifying the petitioner in a hurried manner, without giving him any intimation about it is clearly demonstrative of arbitrariness in the decision making process. The decision was taken objectively to eliminate it and to favour respondent no. 5.

4. Mr. Bhandari would submit that as per Clause 4.1, it was expected that after opening of the technical bid and after scrutiny of the documents of the bidders, a list of qualification/disqualification would be prepared and communicated to the bidders and also would be published on the web portal through which ‘E’ tender process was being undertaken. It expressly stipulated intimation to be given together with reasons to the bidders, who were held to be disqualified. Even there was a stipulation for providing an opportunity to the disqualified bidder to approach the authorities and expecting the authorities to extend an opportunity of personal hearing. However, these requirements were not followed by respondent nos.2 to 4 and demonstrates arbitrariness in undertaking the tender process.

5. Mr. Bhandari would then submit that the offer of respondent no. 5 was suffering from several shortcomings and was not compatible with the terms and conditions of the tender notice. However, the authorities have conveniently ignored the shortcomings and it was allowed to clear the technical bid successfully. He would submit that as per clause 2.2.A (V) of the tender document, the bidder was expected to submit a list of machinery and plants for their use in the proposed work. It required documentary proof in respect of the machinery owned by the bidder in the form of R.T.O. registration, certificate of taxation, goods carriage permit in Form P-Gd (Rule 72 (i)(v) of the Motor Vehicles Rules and certificate of fitness in Form 38 as per Rule 62(i)(7). He would submit that the respondent no. 5 had not furnished any certificate of fitness of the plant and machinery as per this stipulat

            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