A non-participant in a tender process lacks locus standi to challenge tender decisions, affirming that timely grievances are essential to public project integrity.

Judgment:

(Per: Sandeep V. Marne J.)

1) The Petitioner has filed the present Petition seeking termination of work order dated 29 December 2022 issued in favour of Respondent No.3 and for cancellation of the tender process. Petitioner has also prayed for appointment of appropriate enquiry committee for conducting investigations into the entire tender process. He has also prayed for recovery of money paid to Respondent No.3 in pursuance of work order dated 29 December 2022.

2) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Petition are as under:

Respondent No.1-Nashik Municipal Smart City Development Corporation Ltd. issued E-Tender for a proposal for implementation and maintenance of Integrated Surveillance and City Operations Platforms (ISCOP) for Emergency Operation Center (EOC) in Nashik on 5 July 2022. The timeline for completion of work under the tender was 12 months from the date of issuance of work order with operation and maintenance. Under the pre- qualified criteria specified in the Tender Notice, the bidder was supposed to possess average annual turnover of minimum Rs.35 crores in previous five financial years. The documents required to be submitted to satisfy pre-qualified criteria of turnover were either audited statements of five years or certificate from a Chartered Accountant. Several bidders submitted their bids in pursuance of the Tender Notice. According to the Petitioner, the entity with whom Petitioner used to work as a sub-contractor, also submitted its bid in pursuance of the Tender Notice. Petitioner relies upon email dated 22 July 2022 in support of an understanding between himself and the said entity to indicate that he was also part of the tendering process. Respondent No.3 also submitted its bid against the Tender Notice. The bids of some of the bidders were rejected on account of failure to meet the eligibility criteria. Petitioner claims that several news items were published in local newspapers alleging deliberate rejection of bids of other bidders with a view to favour Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 was selected as a successful bidder and accordingly work order dated 29 December 2022 was issued in favour of Respondent No.3. Petitioner has challenged the said work order by filing the present Petition alleging that Respondent No.3 had not only failed to qualify the eligibility criteria prescribed in the Tender Notice, but relied upon some forged documents.

3) After the Petitioner filed the present Petition on 18 January 2024, this Court passed interim order dated 30 January 2024 directing that no further payment be made to Respondent No.3 in relation to the work order issued to it. The said interim order was modified on 22 April 2024 directing that it would be open to the first Respondent- Corporation to release payment to Respondent No.3 and that such payment would be subject to final outcome of the Petition. The stay on payment was lifted by this Court in view of Affidavit-cum-Undertaking filed by Respondent No.3 for bringing back the amount received towards execution of the work order as and when directed by this Court.

4) Parties have completed the pleadings and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for rival parties, the Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal.

5) Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the work order has been secured by Respondent No.3 by committing fraud on the Respondent-Municipal Corporation. He would submit that the condition under PQ-2 required the bidder to submit either audited statements of five years or certificate of Chartered Accountant demonstrating annual turnover to minimum of Rs.35 cr