IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4761 OF 2024 Nitin Laxmidas Dama An adult Indian inhabitant, residing at

106, Poonam Vihar C4 CHS Ltd., Poonam Nagar, Mahakali Caves, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 093. ...Petitioner : Versus :

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Dairy Development, having its office at Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032

2. The Commissioner Dairy Development Department, having its office at Worli, Mumbai – 400 017

3. The Dy. Commissioner Dairy Development Department, having its office at Worli, Mumbai – 400 017

4. The Dy. Secretary (Diary) Government of Maharashtra having its office at Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.

5. Chief Executive O Aarey Milk Colony, Having its office at Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 065

6. Nyraa Entertainment constituted under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, having its office at C/o Om Cars Kent Enclave, Haridasnagar, Kalpana Chowk Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092 through its partners Mr. Viral Ramniklal Khokhani, Mr. Ketankumar Tarun Bhura and Mr. Shridhar Nagolkar ….Respondents _______________________________________________________________ Mr. Aseem Naphade with Ms. Chaitra Rao, Ms. Meera Parmar and Mr. Jatin Sheth, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Kevic Setalwad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit P. Jadhav, Additional Government Pleader and Mr. Amar Mishra, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5-State.

Mr. Rahul Gaikwad with Mr. Nitin Jagtap and Mr. Dewang Mhatre i/b Mr. Pavan Patil, for Respondent No.6.

_______________________________________________________________

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Reserved On : 13 June 2025. Pronounced On : 19 June 2025.

JUDGMENT : (Per Sandeep V. Marne, J.)

1) The Petitioner has filed the present petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking declaration of ineligibility of Respondent No.6 in the tender process initiated by Respondent Nos.1 to 5 for allotment of warehouses on lease for a period of 30 years. Petitioner has also sought writ of mandamus for consideration of its bid for allotment of seven warehouses which have been allotted to Respondent No.6.

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

Respondent Nos.1 to 5 floated tender vide Notice dated

24 July 2024 for grant of lease in respect of 16 warehouses and one Central Store Office for a tenure of thirty years. The tender notice stipulated eligibility criteria, inter-alia pertaining to turnover and net worth of the bidders. The tender notice required the bidders to have annual financial turnover exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- and in the event of the bidder bidding for more than one warehouse, the bidder was required to satisfy eligibility of annual financial turnover exceeding Rs.50,00,000/- for each warehouse. Similarly, the tender notice prescribed eligibility criteria of bidder’s net worth exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- for each of the warehouses. Petitioner submitted his bids in respect of the eight warehouses and one Central Store Office on 9 August 2024. Similarly, nine other bidders submitted their bids in pursuance of the tender notice, which included Respondent No.6. After conducting technical evaluation, seven bidders were adjudged technically eligible by the tendering authority, including Petitioner and Respondent No.6. The financial bids were opened on 16 August 2024 and thereafter allotment in respect of 16 warehouses and one Central Store Office was finalised by Respondent Nos.1 to 5, under which total 10 warehouses are allotted to Respondent No.6. Warehouse No.16 and the Central Store Office are allotted to the Petitioner. Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in allotting 7 out of the 10 warehouses (for which Petitioner had bid) in favour of Respondent No.6 on the ground that Respondent No.6 is erroneously held eligible in the tender process. Petitioner has accordingly filed the present