Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Alok Aradhe, Sandeep V.Marne
Patil Roadlines – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Manmad Installation through its Chief Manager – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to tender conditions by petitioners. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondent defenses and arguments regarding estoppel. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. clarification on tender document concessions. (Para 10) |
| 4. court's rejection of petitioners' challenge. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. affirmative action for sc/st under constitutional provisions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 6. defense of reservations and petitioners' misinterpretation. (Para 18 , 21 , 24) |
| 7. court's view on reservation guidelines. (Para 20) |
| 8. legitimacy of reservation for mses and affirmation of guidelines. (Para 22 , 25) |
| 9. final dismissal of petition. (Para 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1. Petitioners have filed the present Petition challenging the tender condition in the impugned tender notice issued by Respondent No.1-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) for award of work of road transportation of Bulk POL products by Top Loading Tank Lorries from Manmad Installation, Maharashtra to various locations within and outside the State. Petitioners have also challenged the guidelines issued by the Government of India on 18 August 1994 providing for reservation to Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) ca
Reservation provisions for SC/ST in contracts are constitutionally valid and do not violate fundamental rights, reflecting affirmative action aimed at socio-economic upliftment under Article 46.
The court upheld that 100% reservation for MSEs in public procurement is valid under the MSE Policy, rejecting claims of arbitrariness towards tender selection processes.
Point of law: powers of judicial review are limited and while exercising such power the Court has to see whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is malafideor is intended to fav....
The court upheld the tender process by ONGC, affirming that the draw of lots method is reasonable and aimed at addressing local unemployment, thus not violating constitutional rights.
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, ensuring public interest is prioritized.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to tender conditions and equitable distribution under the MSE Policy, allowing for judicial intervention only in cases of illegality.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
