Disposed

Abhijit Infrastructure and Anr. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

Bombay HC14 Feb 2007WP/465/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding bid rejection, the court held that a delay of 15-45 minutes in tender submission did not prejudice other bidders. The court directed the respondents to consider responses received on the extended deadline and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider all submissions received on 5.2.07 including those of late bidders.

Abhijit Infrastructure and Anr. Vs Maharashtra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION (L) NO.335 OF 2007

¶4

 Abhijeet Infrastructure Limited
 & Another .. Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

 Maharashtra State Electricity
 Distribution Company Limited .. Respondents

¶7

 Mr.A.Y.Bookwala a/w Mr.Deven Chauhan and Mr.Nikhil
 Mehta i/b M/s.KMC Legal Venture for the petitioner

¶8

 Mr.G.R.Joshi a/w Mr.Kiran Gandhi i/b M/s.Little and
 Co. for the respondents

¶9

 CORAM : J.N.PATEL &
 S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 14TH FEBRUARY, 2007

¶11

 P.C.:

¶12

 1. Mentioned. Not on board.

¶13

 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. We
 propose to dispose of the petition at the stage of
 admission itself.

¶14

 3. The learned counsel for the respondents
 submits that as this court proposes to dispose of
 the petition at the stage of admission itself, no
 affidavit in reply is required, as he is placing

¶15

¶16

 documents on record particularly the decision of
 the competent authority that all the bids which are
 not received within the stipulated time should not
 be opened and that is the reason why the
 petitioners’ bid was not taken into consideration.
 The said decision of the competent authority is
 taken on record and marked ’X’ for identification.

¶17

 4. In addition to this, it is submitted that
 the other bidders also strongly objected to
 considering bids of the petitioners as it was
 submitted beyond time i.e. late by 15 / 45
 minutes.

¶18

 5. We are informed that there is one more
 bidder whose bid was submitted late alongwith the
 petitioners i.e. Gondvana Engg. Pvt.Ltd. who has
 not approached before this court.

¶19

 6. The respondents invited bids in the form of
 request for clarification notification i.e. an
 invitation for supply of power on long-term basis
 (Case-I of CBG). In the said bid process, it was
 specifically mentioned that there was a specific

¶20

¶21

 time table of important events i.e. the date of

¶22

 events which is reproduced as under:

¶23

 "DATE EVENT

¶24

 To Commencement of Sale of RFQ
 documents (24th Nov.,2006)
 To + 15 days Last date of Sale of RFQ
 documents (8th Dec.,2006)
 To 60 days Submission of Response of
 RFQ (22nd Jan.,2007)

¶25

 If any of the dates mentioned above is
 declared a public holiday, the deadline
 will be the next working day. The RFQ
 documents are not transferable."

¶26

 7. Though there was no specific time mentioned

¶27

 in the request for qualification notification in
 Clause 2.6 which relates to due dates, in 2.6.1 of
 the document of request for qualification, it is
 specifically mentioned that the bidders should
 submit the response so as to reach the following
 address by 12.30 hrs. on ______ (the date is kept
 blank) i.e. in terms of the request for
 qualification notification which specifies
 submission of response of RFO by 22.01.07.

¶28

 8. It is not disputed before us that the
 respondents on their own extended the last date of
 submission of response of RFQ documents to 5.2.07.

¶29

¶30

 It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

¶31

 petitioners that on 5.2.07, the petitioners
 tendered their submission of response of RFQ
 documents on 5.2.07 but at 12.45 hours whereas it
 is the case of the respondents that it was at 13.15
 hours.

¶32

 9. It is the contention of the petitioners
 that the delay is not material for consideration of
 the response submitted by the petitioners as it
 does not in any way prejudice the other
 participants as well as affect any of the
 substantial terms and conditions of the tender
 documents and, therefore, this should have been
 condoned by the respondents. The respondents
 having failed to condone the same and, therefore,
 they have approached this court.

¶33

 10. Another contention is that when the
 respondents on their own extended the last date of
 submission of responses of RFQ documents to 5.2.07,
 no specific time was notified and therefore, if any
 submission of responses of RFQ documents was within
 the office working hours then there was no reason

¶34

¶35

 why the respondents should not have accepted their
 submission of responses of RFQ documents.

¶36

 11. The learned counsel for the respondents
 submits that it is an accepted position that the
 last date was extended to 5.2.07 but the request
 for qualification specifically specified the time
 as 12.30 hours and therefore, it was not necessary
 while extending the last date of submission of
 responses to mention time and that it was well
 within the knowledge of all concerned.

¶37

 12. In our considered opinion, the delay of 15
 or 45 minutes as rightly submitted by the learned
 counsel for the petitioners, does not in any way
 prejudice the other bidders or is in substantial
 breach of the requirements of the request for
 submission of RFQ documents. We therefore, direct
 the respondents to consider all submissions of RFQ
 documents received on 5.2.07 including that of
 Gondvana Engg. P.Ltd. Petition stands disposed of
 accordingly with no order as to costs.

¶38

 13. Respondents to act on an authenticated copy

¶39

¶40

 of this order.

¶41

 ( SHRI J.N. PATEL, J)

¶42

 ( SHRI S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J )

Abhijit Infrastructure and Anr. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijit Infrastructure and Anr. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

smt shivkumari ramashr gupta Vs state of maharashtra and 3 Ors.

R.S. Bhalla Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer (7) and Anr.

K. Shivraj Mani Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vasant Nagar Rahivasi Sangh and 10 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Akhtar Hussain Khan Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

J.P.D. Corporation Vs Registrar of Firms and Anr.