Shubhada S Kadam

56 wp 7000.2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.7000 OF 2021

M/s. Shrikhande Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

….Petitioners

Versus

Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and anr.

….Respondents

Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, senior advocate along with Mr. Pralhad Paranjape

and Ms.Druti Datar, advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Hemant Prabhulkar along with Mr.Yogesh Bhoge i/b. Jurisperitus

Mumbai, advocate for the respondents.

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.

DATE : 21^st OCTOBER, 2021.

P.C. :

1.

Heard Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners.

2.

The petitioners participated in tender process in pursuance of

the notice dated 6^th May, 2021. The notice was for inviting tenders for the

work of providing Project Management Consultancy services for

upgradation of roads and drainage system outside custom bound area in

Jawaharlal Nehru Port for a length of 19 kms. It may not be necessary for

us to refer to other details. Suffice to say that on 8^th October, 2021,

technical bid of the petitioner No.1 was rejected due to non-performance

1/3

SHUBHADA

SHANKAR

KADAM

Digitally

signed by

SHUBHADA

SHANKAR

KADAM

Date:

2021.10.22

11:43:40

+0530

Shubhada S Kadam

56 wp 7000.2021.doc

in Cochin Port Trust and not disclosing the same while submission of

bids. Being aggrieved, the petitioners submitted representation to

respondent No.1 – Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust through its Chairman

putting forth its grievances against the rejection of technical bid. It was

submitted before this Court that the petitioners apprehended that if any

action is initiated pending the representation, the petitioners would be put

to prejudice and suffer losses.

3.

Mr.Prabhulkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents,

on instructions, makes a statement before this Court that the respondents

would decide the representation of the petitioners within four weeks. The

said statement takes care of the preliminary grievance raised by the

petitioners. In our opinion and in the backdrop of the statement made

before this Court, at present nothing survives in the petition.

4.

Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel, submits before this

Court that, in case, the representation of the petitioner is rejected, the

authority may be directed not to open tender for a period of one week

thereafter so that the petitioners can avail appropriate remedies including

approaching legal forum for redressal of their grievances. There is merit

in the submission of Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel, as such, we

pass the following order:

2/3

Shubhada S Kadam

56 wp 7000.2021.doc

O R D E R

(1) The respondents are directed to decide the petitioners’

representation within four weeks from today.

(2) In case, the respondents reject the petitioners’ representation, the

financial bid shall not be opened for a period of one week

thereafter.

(3) If the petitioners pray for personal hearing before the authority, the

authority may decide that aspect.

In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of.

5.

All concerned to act upon a copy of this order duly

authenticated by the Registry of this Court.

( MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

(PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

3/3