Advocates:
['BHUIBHAR RANJEET DAMODAR', '', 'ABHISHEK P BHUIBHAR', 'ARADHYA VINAYAK PANDE']

17-wp5466.21.odt

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 5466 OF 2021

Sachin Narendra Patel and others

-Vs.-

State of Maharashtra and another

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office notes, Office Memoranda of

Coram, appearances, Court's orders

Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr.R.D.Bhuibhar, counsel for the petitioners.

Mr.A.A.Madiwale, AGP for respondent No.1.

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE &

ANIL L. PANSARE

,

J J .

DATE : 21.12

.20

21

Heard Shri Bhuibhar, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Shri Madiwale, learned AGP, who

appears by waiving notice for respondent No.1.

2.

Perused tender conditions impugned herein. On

going through the conditions, in respect of which

challenge has been made in the petition, we are of the

opinion that these conditions cannot be said to be

onerous or illegal or something which contravene the

Government Resolution dated 27/09/2018.

3.

The GR dated 27/09/2018 nowhere says that if

the value of the work is below Rs.1 Crore, experience

criteria should not be prescribed. In the present case,

the value of each of the 43 works is below Rs.1 Crore,

but as there is no prohibition in the GR dated

27/09/2018 on prescription of experience criteria, no

KHUNTE

17-wp5466.21.odt

2/3

fault could be found with the condition of experience

mentioned in the tender notice.

4.

As regards the conditions relating to experience

criteria being onerous as submitted by the learned

counsel for the petitioners, we find that such an

argument also cannot be accepted. These conditions, as

we find, bear a reasonable nexus with the work which

has been tendered in the present case and this work

being of laying of a pipeline, which includes several

other works such as digging of sink well, installation of

submersible pumps and so and so forth, the employer of

the contract is bound to expect the contractor to possess

some experience of similar works otherwise, the work

to be tendered may suffer for its quality.

5.

The value of the tender works, in the present

case is substantial and these works are to be allotted to

any contractor through open tender process. These

works are not reserved for their allotment to special

categories like educated unemployed engineers or

labour societies and therefore, just because, for the

other categories, no experience has been called for

some works, it would not mean that similar exemption

can be sought by the tenderers bidding through open

process. The tender process confined to such categories

as educated unemployed engineers and labour societies

has different object than the object sought to be

achieved through the open tender process.

KHUNTE

17-wp5466.21.odt

3/3

6.

The main object of the specialized tender

process is to provide employment to the persons, who

are generally backward and who fall in the category of

have nots. Such is not the case with the tenderers who

come through open tender process. Therefore, the

criteria for qualifying in the open tender process can be

different and some time even stricter than the criteria

prescribed for the closed tender process like those

relating to educated unemployed engineers and labour

societies. Therefore, the petitioners who fall in the open

category cannot claim that insofar as experience criteria

is concerned, similar experience criteria or no

experience criteria be also stipulated in their case. It

would have been a di