Advocates:
['Bagul D S', 'COPY SERVED ON S B PULKANDWAR', '', 'PATIL INDRALE ANAND V', 'R NO IS SERVED']

(1)

904-wp-1274-2022 &ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.1274 OF 2022

M/S BHAGWATI CONSTRUCTION THR ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI

VIKAS DEORAO DEOSARKAR

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

ZILLA PARISHAD NANDED AND ANOTHER

..RESPONDENTS

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.2200 OF 2022

M/S. BHAGWATI CONSTRUCTION

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

ZILLA PARISHAD NANDED AND ANOTHER

..RESPONDENTS

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.2211 OF 2022

M/S. BHAGWATI CONSTRUCTION

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

ZILLA PARISHAD NANDED AND ANOTHER

..RESPONDENTS

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.2235 OF 2022

M/S BHAGWATI CONSTRUCTION THR ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI

VIKAS DEORAO DEOSARKAR

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

ZILLA PARISHAD NANDED AND ANOTHER

..RESPONDENTS

…

Mr. D. S. Bagul, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and

2.

Mr. A. V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for Respondent

No.3 in WP/2200/2022, WP/2211/2022 and

WP/2235/2022.

…

CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA &

S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATED : 24^th MARCH, 2022.

(2)

904-wp-1274-2022 &ors.

PER COURT:-

1.

The petitioner in Writ Petition

No.1274/2022 has impugned the order dated

14.01.2022 thereby rejecting the technical bid of

the petitioner on the ground that, there was flaw

in the agreement of machinery tender.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that, respondent nos.1 and 2 ought to have

given notice to the petitioner if any discrepancies

appeared in the tender documents submitted by the

petitioner before rejecting the technical bid

submitted by the petitioner. He invited our

attention to the agreement entered into between the

petitioner and Mr. Chandrakant B. Chinchalkar

annexed at Exhibit-C to the petition dated

13.11.2021 in respect of hiring machinery which

were required according to the petitioner for the

work if would have been awarded to the petitioner

by respondent nos.1 and 2. He invited our

attention to the letter dated 23.11.2021 annexed by

the Zilla Parishad in the affidavit-in-reply

addressed by Mr. Chandrakant B. Chinchalkar to the

Executive Engineer informing that, the agreement

dated 13.11.2021 between the petitioner and Mr.

Chinchalkar was cancelled.

3.

It is submitted by the learned counsel

that, the financial bid of the petitioner being

lowest, the respondent nos.1 and 2 could not have

rejected the technical bid submitted by the

(3)

904-wp-1274-2022 &ors.

petitioner and that also on the ground that there

was discrepancy in the agreement entered into

between the petitioner and Mr. Chinchalkar. He

invited our attention to the condition nos.3 and 4

at pages 24 and 25 of the petition and would submit

that, the petitioner was not required to submit

such certificate alongwith tender documents.

4.

It is submitted that, since there is no

work order issued in favour of a successful bidder,

this Court shall interfere in the tender process

initiated by respondent nos.1 and 2. He placed

reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of

R.K. Chavan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Through its

Director Mr. Rajkumar M. Chavan Vs. The State of

Maharashtra through Secretary Public Works

Department and Others reported in 2010 SCC OnLine

Bom 2263 in support of the submission that, the

petitioner once having been declared qualified,

could not have been disqualified subsequently.

5.

The learned counsel for Zilla Parishad on

the other hand submits that, machinery agreement

for taking the machinery on hire entered into

between the petitioner and Mr. Chinchalkar was

admittedly cancelled on the date of the petitioner

filing technical bid. He submits that, since the

tender was for a short period, the petitioner was

not granted opportunity to rectify the deficiencies

in the tender documents. He placed reliance on the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of

M/s. N. G. Projects Limited Vs. M/s. Vinod Kumar

(4)

904-wp-1274-2022 &ors.

Jain and Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302 and

in particular paragraph no.23 and submits that,

remedy if any of the