The court upheld the tendering authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria, emphasizing limited judicial review focused on procedural fairness rather than the merits of the decision.

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 15^th 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 12^th 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 23^rd 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 24^th September 2024, uploaded documents were forwarded to the Project Management Consultant (PMC) appointed by the Corporation. The Corporation, by e-mail dated 25^th 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 27^th September 2024.

6. The petitioner, on 25^th 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 27^th September 2024. The PMC submitted a final scrutiny report on 30^th September 2024. The Tender Acceptance Committee of the Corporation, on 1^st October 2024 verified the scrutiny report and examined the issue of qualification of the technical bids of the bidders on the touchstone of qualifying criteria prescribed in Clause 12 of the tender documents.

7. The Tender Acceptance Committee found the technical bid submitted by the petitioner to be non-responsive. The decision on the disqualification of the petitioner’s technical bid was downloaded by it on 2^nd October 2024. On 1^st October 2024, the final bids of the technically qualified bidders were opened and the bid of respondent No.5 viz. Painterior Protective System LLP was found to be the lowest