Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1704

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
ALOK ARADHE, CJ, M.S.KARNIK, J
Thakur Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13976 OF 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. C. A. Sundaram, Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Mr. Nirman Sharma, Ms. Rohini Musa, Mr. Shivaji Jadhav, Ms. Akanksha Agrawal, Mr. Dhrupad Vaghani, Mr. Ansh Karnawat, Mr. Ashwath Reddy, Mr. Nihar Ghag, Mr. Deeshank Doshi
For the Respondents: Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, Mr. Ravi Kadam, Mr. Rohan Kadam, Mr. Rahul Sinha, Mr. Soham Bhalerao, Mr. Vikram Nankani, Mr. Chirag Shah, Mr. Jay Sanklecha, Mr. Bhavya Shah, Mr. Ashish Kamat, Mr. Harsh Moorjani, Ms. Namrata Vinod, Mr. Shyamsundar Jadhav, Mr. Vishal Acharya

Tender authorities must not arbitrarily reject bids without valid grounds, and must treat all bidders equitably under the tender requirements.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 40(1)(b) - Integrity Pact - Writ petition to quash rejection of bids by the Tender Committee. The bids of the lead member of a joint venture were rejected on grounds of non-compliance with mandatory tender conditions, including lack of signature on the Integrity Pact, incomplete documentation, and failure to meet eligibility credentials. (Para 10)

(B) Bids and Tendering - Principles governing tender evaluation - The petitioner asserted that the rejection was arbitrary and not based on substantial non-compliance. The Court analyzed the validity of the grounds for rejection, focusing on the principle that enforcement of conditions must be fair and consistent across all bidders. (Paras 31-41)

Facts of the case:
Thakur Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. (TIPL) as lead member of the Thakur-EVRASCON JV was denied tenders based on cited deficiencies, despite being the lowest bidder as compared to other joint ventures. The financial implications of the tender differed significantly, prompting legal challenge.

Findings of Court:
The court found that grounds for rejection were unfounded, particularly regarding the absence of enforcement of the integrity pact signature, thereby accepting that these did not constitute valid reasons for disqualification.

Issues: The Court addressed whether the JV met eligibility standards and if the grounds for rejecting the bids showed irrationality by the decision-making authority.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court recognized that arbitrary rejection of technology bids where formalities were met could not be justified, necessitating reconsideration of all eligible bids.

Result: The impugned decision was quashed, directing the CIDCO to reassess bids accordingly.

Table of Content
1. parties involved in the jv and their roles (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. background facts of the tender bids and rejections (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. petitioner's arguments against tender rejection (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. respondent cidco's defense for rejection (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. court analysis of tender rejection grounds (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
6. final court orders and implications (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)

JUDGMENT

(PER : CHIEF JUSTICE)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash and set aside minutes of meeting of the Tender Committee dated 8^th October 2024 by which the bids submitted by the petitioner in respect of the tenders in question have been rejected. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, the relevant facts need narration, which are stated infra.

(I) INTRODUCTION :

3. The petitioner, Thakur Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. (TIPL) is a lead member of the Joint Venture viz. Thakur-EVRASCON JV comprising of TIPL and M/s. OJSC Euro Asian Construction Corporation ‘EVRASCON’, established in the year 1968 in Azerbaijan (hereinafter referred to as the JV). The JV is a company incorporated in India and is in the business of infrastructure projects since 1974.

4. The Respondent No.1 is State of Maharashtra, whereas, respondent No.2 is the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (CIDCO) appointed as a Special Planning Authority under Section 40(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for Navi Mumbai Airport Influence Notified Area (hereinafter referred to as NAINA project).

5. The Respondent No.3 – M/s. PNC Aakshya Joint Venture and Respondent No.4 – M/s. Ashoka-Aakshya Joint Venture are joint venture companies who had submitted their bids in respect of the tenders in question.

(II) BACKGROUND FACTS:

6. The following tenders (hereinafter referred to as the subject tenders) form subject matter of this writ petition.

(i) Notice inviting bids for Integrated Infrastructure Development of 20M & above wide Roads, Construction of Various Major & Minor Structures (viz. Flyover, Minor Bridges, VUPs, PUPs etc.) and Allied Electrical Works (street light) in TPS 10 and 11 (vide Tender No.CA No.02/CIDCO/EE(NAINA-I)/2024-25) [Tender 1 dated 23^rd July 2024.

(ii) Notice inviting bids for Integrated Infrastructure Development of 20M & above wide Roads, Construction of Various Major & Minor Structures (viz. Flyover, Minor Bridges, VUPs, PUPs etc.) and allied Electrical Works in TPS 8, TPS 9 and TPS 12 (vide Tender No.CA No.01/CIDCO/EE(NAINA I)/2024-25) [Tender 2] dated 23^rd July 2024.

7. These tenders pertain to infrastructure works for NAINA Project. The project cost for first tender was notified at Rs.1568,86,38,074.87 (Rs.One thousand five hundred sixty-eight crores eighty-six lacs thirty-eight thousand seventy-four and eighty-seven paise only) (excluding GST), whereas, the same was notified for the second tender over Rs.1909 crores (Rupees One thousand nine hundred and nine crores only).

8. On 23^rd July 2024, notices were published by CIDCO in newspaper viz. daily Indian Express inviting bids for the subject tenders. The JV submitted its technical and financial bids on 9^th November 2024 in respect of subject tenders. The other bidders viz. respondent No.3– M/s. PNC Aakshya Joint Venture and respondent No.4–M/s.Ashoka- Akshaya Joint Venture Ltd. also submitted their bids. The technical bids were opened on 11^th September 2024. M/s. PNC Aakshya Joint Venture and M/s.Ashoka-Akshaya Joint Venture Ltd., on 26^th September 2024 addressed separate letters to CIDCO by which they raised objections to the bids submitted by the JV in respect of the subject tenders. The JV thereupon sent a communication on 27^th September 2024 to CIDCO pointing out deficiencies in the technical bids submitted by respondent Nos.3 and 4

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1704

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYALOK ARADHE, CJ, M.S.KARNIK, JThakur Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. – AppellantVersusState of Maharashtra – RespondentCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13976 OF 2024

Tender authorities must not arbitrarily reject bids without valid grounds, and must treat all bidders equitably under the tender requirements.

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
ALOK ARADHE, CJ, M.S.KARNIK, J
Thakur Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13976 OF 2024