The court upheld the disqualification of bidders based on the interpretation of tender conditions prohibiting joint ventures, affirming the Corporation's decision as reasonable and not arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. KARNIK, J.

1. Petitioner No.1 - M/s. Barkat Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and Petitioner No.2 - M/s. Ratnaprabha Facility Services LLP challenge the decision dated 9^th October 2024 of the Respondent No.1 - Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation ('Corporation' for short) disqualifying the Petitioners and thereby declaring Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 technically eligible. The order dated 13^th October 2024 passed by the Corporation is also challenged, whereby the Respondent No.4 is declared as the lowest bidder. The work order dated 20^th December 2024 in favour of Respondent No.4 is also under challenge.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Corporation issued e-tender on 7^th September 2024 for door-to-door collection and transportation of Municipal Solid Waste up to disposal/treatment site for Zone II in the Bhiwandi Nizampur City for the period of three years. The Petitioners through their partnership firm M/s. Barkat Contractors submitted the bid on 29^th September 2024 along with all the required documents, credentials and experience certificates as per the tender format. The technical bids were opened on 1^st October 2024. There were five bidders including the Petitioner. The Petitioners downloaded all the documents pertaining to the other bidders/applicants which were submitted along with the tender.

3. Upon examining the bid documents, the Petitioners found that out of the total 16 mandatory qualifications, Respondent Nos.4 to 6 had failed to meet approximately 12-13 criterions. The Petitioners brought the same to the attention of the Corporation on 8^th October 2024 and requested to investigate the matter and if found to be correct, disqualify Respondent Nos.4 to 6.

4. The Corporation issued email to the Petitioners dated 9^th October 2024 stating that the Technical Evaluation Committee had rejected their bid. The Corporation uploaded the technical evaluation report on its website on 9^th October 2024. The grievance of the Petitioners is that despite the Petitioners' objection that Respondent Nos.4 to 6 have submitted incomplete and false documents, they were declared to be technically eligible. The financial bid was opened on 9^th October 2024. The Petitioners vide a letter dated 11^th October 2024 wrote to the Corporation objecting to the declaration of Respondent No.4 as technically and financially eligible.

5. Ms. Shilpi Jain, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that :-

“i) R4 had filed the forged ITR documents as E-filing acknowledgement number on the ITR filed for AY 2023-24 and 2024-25 are same which shows a clear case of forgery.

ii) Bar code numbers on both the ITR i.e, AY 2023-24 and AY 2024-25 are same.

iii) Computation on both the ITR for the AY 2024-25 and 2023-24 were found to be same.

iv) Submitted labour License that had already expired on 30^th September 2022.

v) CA certificate does not have a date and the UDIN number.

vi) Application Reference Number on GST-36 Turnover Details for quarterly returns in both the AY 2024-25 and AY 2023-24 is same.”

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Respondent No.5 is not technically eligible for the following reasons :

“i) Acknowledgement No. mentioned in the ITR submitted by R5 for AY 2024-25 is exactly same as the acknowledgement number in the ITR submitted by R4 for AY 2023-24 & AY 2024-25.

ii) There are two different IT Acknowledgement number in the ITR for AY 2024-25.

iii) Turnover certificate issued by CA is also forged. It shows the turnover of Rs. 930.95 crores but on examination of the UDIN Number, the certificate shows a turnover of 822.82 crores for the year 2022-23.

iv) Submitted forged experience certificate alleged to be issued by Akola Municipal Corporation, which on telephonic verification was confirmed that no such certificate was ever issued.”

7. So far as Respondent No.6 is concerned, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Respondent No.6 is not technically eligible on the following grounds:

“i) R6 had submitted the UDYAM R