Dismissed

Vijay Hiralal Jaiswal v. the Chief Engineer and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2010WP/440/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a decision excluding the petitioner from opening price bids for a specialized sea erosion bund contract due to non-compliance with technical criteria. The Court held it could not sit in appeal over the authority's technical determination and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition summarily dismissed with no merit found.

Vijay Hiralal Jaiswal Vs the Chief Engineer and 2 Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.440/10

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 440 OF 2010

¶6

Vijay Hiralal Jaiswal ).. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Chief Engineer, Special Project (P.W.) ) Mumbai and others ).. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Udaya S. Samudrala for the Petitioner. Mr. Niranjan Pandit, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State. Mr. Vishwajeet Sawant for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 12TH JULY 2010

¶11

P.C.

¶12

What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the decision of the respondent-authority considering that the petitioner is not eligible for opening of the price bid for the contract of “Strengthening of anti sea erosion bund at Alibag, District Raigad (Rest House to D.S.P. Bungalow). The tender documents required the bidder to comply with several conditions in order to be eligible. Some of the conditions were as under :-

¶13

“3.4.8 Details of work done in all classes of civil Engineering works during last three years with the value of unfinished work (Information to be given in Form No.1, Page No.23 and should be supported by work done certificate signed by the Authority with whom the contractor has executed the work).

¶14

¶15

W.P.No.440/10

¶16

3.4.9 Details of similar type of work i.e. work involving providing and laying trap stone rubble carried out in tidal conditions in Sea coastal area. (Information to be given in proforma of Form No.2, Page No.24 and should be supported by work done certificate signed by the Authority with whom the contractor has executed the work.)

¶17

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

¶18

3.4.16.1 To qualify for award of the contract each tenderer in his name should have

¶19

(a) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

¶20

(b) Satisfactorily completed (from start to finish), as a prime contractor, at least one similar type work i.e. work of anti sea erosion bund constructed by using Gabion boxes and involving use of trap stone rubble of value not less than Rs.500.00 Lakh (Form 2 on Page No. 24).”

¶21

Since the petitioner was not found to have complied with the above conditions, the respondents did not call the petitioner for opening the price bids and the petitioner made a complaint/representation against the above decision, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner did not comply with the above requirements. In response to the said communication, the petitioner by letter dated 5^th January 2010 stated that there was nothing contained in the tender inviting specialized skill, machineries or technique and that the pre qualification norms as inserted are not relevant as such unauthorized and inserted to favour a particular contractor.

¶22

The same stand is taken up by the petitioner in the memo of the petition.

¶23

¶24

W.P.No.440/10

¶25

In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the work in question is highly specialized work costing more than 10.74 crores. In paragraph 8 of the reply affidavit, several technical details are given by the respondent authority indicating how the work in question requires specialized skills.

¶26

In view of the settled legal position, this Court is not sitting in appeal over any decision of the authority in determining the technical eligibility criteria. We do not find any merit in the petition. Petition is summarily dismissed.

¶27

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶28

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Vijay Hiralal Jaiswal v. the Chief Engineer and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Hiralal Jaiswal v. the Chief Engineer and 2 Ors.

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

Ramkrishna v. Khot and Ors. Vs Ratnakar Parlhad Herekar and Ros.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Santosh Vidyadhar Kolhapure

Laxmi Education Society and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Noor Mohammed Khatri Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Nutan Pushpak Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. and 2 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Tilak Nagar C0-OP. Hsg. Societies Union Ltd. and Anr. Vs Mumbai Housing and Area Development Authority and 4 Ors.