The court upheld the rejection of a tender bid due to encumbrance on the offered land, affirming the authority's discretion in evaluating eligibility based on tender conditions.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the counsel for the respective parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order issued by respondent No. 4 vide email dated 15-02-2024 about the rejection of the techno commercial bid submitted by the petitioner company on 04-01-2024 in response to the Notice Inviting Tender dated 16/12/2023.

3. FACTUAL MATRIX:

(a) Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 issued a tender under the designation Notice Inviting Tenders (hereinafter referred to as “NIT”) No. SAIL/CMO/NAGPUR/CA/2023/01 dated 16-12-2023. Under the document, the tenderer was required to meet various criteria namely financial standing, performance record, infrastructure, and minimum equipment requirement. In the criteria of infrastructure, the tenderer was required to possess land measuring 12.5 acres, complete with the specified infrastructure facilities outlined in the tender document.

(b) The petitioner acquired land measuring 12.5 acres located in Mouza-Khairi on a lease basis vide registered lease deed dated 03-01-2024. The land owner of the said land had availed the crop loan of Rs.1.6 Lakhs from the Bank of India through the Kisan Cash Credit (KCC) Scheme.

(c) On 04-01-2024 the petitioner submitted its bid in the prescribed time along with the requisite documents. Pursuant to the same, the respondents through email on 01-02-2024 requested the petitioner to furnish certain deficient documents. Thereafter again on 05-2-2024, the respondents issued another email seeking additional documents coupled with a new affidavit affirming that there is no encumbrance and the property is free from mortgage, charge, or lien. Accordingly, the petitioner supplied the information on 07-02-2024 contending that inadvertently indicating encumbrance over the property and pledging to settle the outstanding dues or loans associated with the said property in the event of being awarded L1.

(d) On 12-02-2024 physical inspection was conducted and all original documents of the plots were scrutinized. During scrutiny, the committee found that there was encumbrance on the offered plot rendering it ineligible as per the specified criteria. Accordingly, they informed the petitioner vide email dated 14-02-2024 that the plot of land offered by the petitioner was not found suitable and ineligible with the tender terms.

4. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

(a) Ms. Yashodhan Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner vociferously submitted that passing of the order by respondent Nos.2 to 4 is illegal and contrary to the facts on record. She has submitted that in 7/12 extract crop loan is shown. She further harped that an agricultural loan of Rs.1.6 Lakhs obtained under the ‘KCC’ Scheme cannot reasonably be deemed as an encumbrance, but it is secured by hypothecation of standing crops and not a mortgaged of land. In support of her submission, she has relied on the 7/12 extract, letter, and no-dues certificate issued by the bank. She further argued that the respondents have not produced the search report before the Court to show that land is mortgaged with the bank. She has drawn our attention to sub-clause (e) of Clause 2.3.2 of the Tender Notice and submitted that the petitioner has possessed 12.5 acres of land as per the said requirement without having any encumbrance. She further pointed out that loans for the years 2002, 2013, and 2019 had been cleared by the owner of the land. No due certificate was issued by the bank showing that the land owner has cleared the loan for the years 2002, 2013, and 2019, however, neither the entry in that regard was taken nor cancelled in the 7/12 extract. That does not mean that there is any encumbrance over the land.

(b) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the provisions of Sections 108, 148-C, and 157 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and tried to emph