Dismissed

Babaji Bhagwant Kane v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jul 2012WP/2283/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged CIDCO's cancellation of a tender for plot allottment after refusing his offer below Rs 60,000 per sq. meter. The Court found the tender document reserved the right to cancel, the cancellation was in larger public interest, and the petition lacked merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed holding the cancellation of the tender process by CIDCO was lawful and in public interest.

Babaji Bhagwant Kane Vs City and Industrial… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP-2283-12

¶2

skc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2283 OF 2012

Babaji Bhagwant Kane

..Petitioner

versus

City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Anr.

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

Mr. G. S. Bhat for Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. C. M. Lokesh i/b. Mr. G. S. Hegde for Respondent No. 1. Mr. S. R. Nargolkar – Additional Government Pleader for State – Respondent No. 2.

¶13

CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶14

18 July 2012

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for

¶17

the respondent no. 1 and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the State – respondent no. 2.

¶18

Grievance of the petitioner is in respect of communication dated 23.5.2011 issued by the respondent – CIDCO whereby the petitioner was

1/3

WP-2283-12

skc

informed that it is not possible for them to accept the offer of the petitioner which was less than Rs.60,000/- per sq. meter submitted pursuant to the invitation to offer issued in the month of November 2011 in respect of plot in question. The stand of the petitioner is that the offer submitted by the petitioner was the highest offer and therefore the same ought to have been accepted by the CIDCO.

¶23

CIDCO has filed an affidavit dated 20.4.2012 and in paragraph 8 of the said affidavit, it is observed thus :

¶24

“I say that in the case of said 19 allotments, the prices which were quoted was much more than the base price and in respect of 12 plots the prices quoted was Rs.60,000 and above per sq. mtr. I say that it was realized by the Respondent no. 1 that prices of the plots in the said sector 2B of Airoli was about Rs.60,000 per sq. mtr. and that in respect of bids which were received for adjoining plots in the said sector, which were for less than Rs.60,000 per sq. mtr., the revised bids to be invited may fetch more consideration. I say that price of less than Rs.60,000 per sq. mtr. received for the plots was far less and therefore Respondent No.1 decided to cancel the said tender/ auction and reinvite fresh bids for allotment of the remaining 7

2/3

WP-2283-12

skc

plots.”

It is therefore contended that in view of the above facts and circumstances, the tender process came to be cancelled.

¶30

Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective parties. It is not in dispute that right to cancel the tender process is reserved by CIDCO which is reflected in the tender document and the petitioner was well aware of the said clause. From the facts placed before us it appears that the offers in respect of the plot in question received by the CIDCO was less than Rs.60,000/- and therefore the respondent no.1 by exercising the power vested in it, in the larger public interest, cancelled the tender process. We see no infirmity in the procedure adopted by the CIDCO, hence petition suffers from lack of merits. The same is dismissed.

¶31

(SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

¶32

Chandka

¶33

3/3

Babaji Bhagwant Kane v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babaji Bhagwant Kane v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and 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

Sanjay Babulal Singhi Vs the State Maharastra , through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Ors.

Manohar Damu Saindane Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Sharadchandra Pancha Solanki and Ors.

Sou. Akktai Sukhadeo Jadhav Vs the Saraswat Co-Op. Bank Ltd, through Manager

Mr. Rajeshwar Digambar Patwari Vs Mr. Sham Ganpat Koli and Ors.

Smt. Rasika Rajesh Thakare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Medical Education and Drug Dept and Ors.