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

2025 Supreme(Bom) 217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ALOK ARADHE, C.J., BHARATI DANGRE, J
Mahendra Realtors And Infrastructure Limited - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (L) No. 32013 of 2024
Decided On : 12-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy with Mr. Saikumar
Ramamurty and Ms. Seema Sorte for petitioner in
WPL/32013/2024.
Ms. Rama Subramanian for petitioner in
WPL/32852/2024.
Mr. Abhay L. Patki, Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1-State in WPL/32013.
Mr. Mohit P. Jadhav, Addl. Govt. Pleader with
Mr. Rakesh Pathak, AGP for respondent No.1 State in WPL/32852.
Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pralhad Paranjape and Mr. Rahul Punjabi for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in WPL/32013/2024 and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in WPL/32852/2024.
Mr. S. M. Sagarla i/b. RMG Law Associates for
respondent no. 4 in WPL/32852/2024.
Mr. Shubhabrata Chakraborti with Ms. Shivali Khadke for respondent No.5 in both petitions.

Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing procedural fairness, not the merits of the tender conditions, which are determined by the tendering authority.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petitions challenging the disqualification of technical bids in a tender process - The petitioner contended that the eligibility conditions were unconstitutional and that the tender process lacked transparency. The court found that the tendering authority followed the prescribed procedures and that the petitioners did not meet the qualifying criteria. (Paras 1-31)

(B) Judicial Review - The scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited to examining the fairness of the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself. The court emphasized that the author of the tender document is best suited to determine its requirements. (Paras 17-20)

(C) Tender Conditions - The court held that the conditions set forth in the tender were not arbitrary or discriminatory and that the petitioners failed to comply with the eligibility criteria. (Paras 27-30)

Table of Content
1. challenge to tender conditions (Para 1)
2. details of the tender process (Para 4)
3. submission of bids (Para 5 , 6)
4. disqualification of technical bid (Para 7 , 8)
5. petitioner's arguments on transparency (Para 9)
6. eligibility conditions favoring respondent (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
7. court's view on tender process (Para 17)
8. judicial review principles (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
9. decision of the court (Para 31)

JUDGMENT :

(ALOK ARADHE, CJ.)

1. In writ petition (L) No.32013 of 2024, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the conditions contained in a tender floated by Maharashtra Film Stage and Cultural Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), in particular, the eligibility conditions contained in paragraph 12F of the tender document. The petitioner has also assailed the action of respondents in declaring bid of the petitioner as technically disqualified. The petitioner also seeks to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 15th October 2024 issued in favour of respondent No.5 and seeks a direction to re-tender the entire work.

2. In writ petition (L) No.32852 of 2024 the petitioner prays for a declaration that order dated 1st October 2024 rejecting the bid of petitioner therein and any actions, orders or steps consequent thereto are unconstitutional, ultra vires, non-est, illegal and bad in law. The petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 1st October 2024 rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks direction against the respondents to conduct re-tender and reinstate the petitioner in the tender process.

3. Both the writ petitions arise out of the same tender floated by the Corporation and the issues which require consideration being common, the writ petitions are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the facility of reference, facts from writ petition (L) No.32013 of 2024 are being referred.

4. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of civil engineering. The respondent No.1 Corporation floated a tender for “Repair and Upgradation of Studio 1, 2, 5, 7, 16 and Hospital Building” at Dadasaheb Phalke Chitranagari, Goregaon, East. On 12th September 2024 a pre- bid meeting was held by the Corporation and various queries raised by the bidders were answered. Thereafter, the Corporation decided to modify the quantities contained in Clause 12F of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). The revised Statement- VI was issued substituting the original statement. The petitioners participated in the pre-bid meeting.

5. The Corporation, thereafter, decided to extend the time limit for submission of the tender upto 23rd September 2024. In response to the aforesaid NIT, four tenderers viz. (i) Painterior Protective System LLP, (ii) Shandar Interiors Pvt. Ltd. (iii) Dev Engineers and (iv) Mahendra Realtors & Infrastructure Ltd. submitted their bids. On 24th September 2024, uploaded documents were forwarded to the Project Management Consultant (PMC) appointed by the Corporation. The Corporation, by e-mail dated 25th September 2024 informed the petitioners about the shortfall observed in their bids. The petitioners were asked to submit the short-fall documents on or before 27th September 2024.

6. The petitioner, on 25th September 2024 addressed a communication to the Deputy Engineer of the Corporation seeking technical bid documents of all the bidders. The petitioner, thereupon annexed five out of seven short-fall documents as sought for by the Corporation. The short-fall documents submitted by the petitioner were sent for reconsideration to the PMC for the scrutiny on 27th September 2024. The PMC submitted a final scrutiny report on 30th September 2024. The Tender Acceptance Committee of the Corporation, on 1st October 2024 verified the scrutiny report and examined the issue of qualification of the technical bids of the bidder

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