Dismissed

Rajendra S. Choudhari and Anr. v. the Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Feb 2005PIL/4/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Corporators challenged a resolution directing the Municipal Corporation to exercise powers under Section 54 regarding waste management disposal through a public notice. The court examined whether the Corporation erred in negotiating only with the lowest bidder after finding their initial offer high. The petition was deemed devoid of merit as negotiating with the lowest tenderer is the correct appr

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajendra S. Choudhari and Anr. Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 4 OF 2004

¶5

Rajendra S. Choudhari & Anr.........

¶6

Petitioners.

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Municipal Corporation of the ... ... City of Ulhasnagar & Ors..... Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Subhash Dhadge with Mr. G. S. Godbole for the Petitioners.

¶10

Mr. C. J. Sawant with Mr. R. M. Sawant, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶11

Mr. V.P. Malvankar, AGP for Respondent No.3.

¶12

Mr. D. N. Naphade with Mr. N. R. Jagtap for Respondent No.4.

¶13

CORAM : DALVEER BHANDARI, C. J. &

¶14

S. A. BOBDE, J.

¶15

DATED : FEBRUARY 2, 2005.

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

The petitioners Corporators have filed this public interest litigation

¶18

¶19

in which they have prayed that the State of Maharashtra be directed forthwith

¶20

to exercise powers under Section 541 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and annul the impugned resolution No.45 passed in the meeting of the Standing Committee of respondent No.1, the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ulhasnagar, on 9^th July, 2003.

¶21

In pursuance to the notice issued by this Court, reply affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1 Corporation. In the reply, it is submitted that four bids were received. The details of the four tenderers and the bids

¶22

submitted by them are reproduced as under:

¶23

Sr.No. -----------	Name -----------------------------------------------------	Bid ------------------------------
1.	M/s.Antony Waste Handling Cell Pvt. Ltd.	6,93,60,867
2.	M/s. Konark Inf. Pvt. Ltd.	8,00,00,000
3.	M/s. V. R. Panvelkar	7,80,00,000
4.	M/s. ArjunConst.	8,10,00,000

¶24

Admittedly, Antony Waste Handling Cell Pvt. Ltd. was the lowest

¶25

bidder. The said offer was not acceptable to the Corporation. The Corporation

¶26

found Rs.6.93 crores per year to be on a higher side. According to the

¶27

¶28

guidelines dated 19^th January, 1973 issued by the State, in case the offer of the lowest tenderer is found to be on higher side, then negotiations should be

¶29

carried out first with the lowest tenderer for getting the said lowest offer further reduced. In the light of the said guidelines, respondent No.4 was called for negotiations as regards the offer made by it by respondent No.2, Municipal Commissioner. In the negotiations, respondent No.4 reduced its offer from Rs.6.93 crores per year to Rs.4.38 crores per year.

¶30

The only grievance, which the petitioners have made in this petition, is that when the respondents called the lowest tenderer for negotiations and in the negotiations the amount was reduced from Rs.6.93 crores to Rs.4.38 crores, they ought to have called other tenderers also who had submitted their bids. No fault can really be found in this approach of the Corporation in negotiating with the lowest tenderer for further reducing the original offer.

¶31

This petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

S. A. BOBDE, J.

Rajendra S. Choudhari and Anr. v. the Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajendra S. Choudhari and Anr. v. the Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vilas Tatyasaheb Misal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vilas Tatyasaheb Misal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shrikrishna Harishchandra Vilankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shrikrishna Harishchandra Vilankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Er.Karpurapu Vara Prasadarao Vs Union of India

Kailash Damodar Patil Vs the Minister for Revenue and Anr.

Shirin Vaishampain and Anr. Vs the Sub Divisional Officer Cum Managing Officer and Ors.

Dilip Sarjerao Mankumre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri Pullayya Irayya Komti and Ors. Vs Shri Pandurang Ashayya Yemul and Ors.

Vitthal Vividh Karyakari Seva ( Vikas ) Soc. Ltd. Vs State of Maharshra

Krishnath Ramchandra Purvat and Ors. Vs Vithal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors.

Devadatta Narayan Desai Vs the Commissioner, Municipal Corpn. of the City of Navi Mumbai and Ors.

Balasaheb Deoram Dhasal Vs Secretary to the Govt,Urban and Rural Dev.Dept.and Ors.

Smt. Rashmiben Kanhaiyalal Thakkar and Ors. Vs Pandurang Dharma Bhoir and Ors.