Disposed

M/S Madhur Courier Services v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Feb 2012WP/359/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a tender condition imposed by MSRTC Corporation that required applicants to have experience running business within a State Road Transport Corporation. The Court held prima facie that narrow conditions were not in the corporation's interest. The Corporation submitted an undertaking to withdraw the condition and issue a fresh tender with revised requirements, leading to the d

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of on the respondent Corporation's undertaking to withdraw the impugned condition and issue a fresh tender with revised eligibility criteria.

M/S Madhur Courier Services Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.359 OF 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 907 OF 2012 WITH

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1202 OF 2012

¶5

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶6

¶7

Mr. Amol S. Sawant/ Mr. R.N. Dhorde, h/f Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate / Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioners in W.P. Nos. 359/2012, 907/2012 and 1202/2012, respectively, Mr. S.V. Kurundkar,Govt. Pleader for respondent – State. Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel, h/f. Mr. D.S. Bagul for MSRT Corporation.

¶8

CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶9

DATE :- 3rd^t FEBRYARY , 2012.

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

1] Writ petition NO. 359 and 1202 of 2012 have been filed challenging the tender notice issued by the respondent MSRTC dated 28^th December, 2011, interalia, challenging the following condition :-

¶12

“The Tenderer who has three years experience in the field of Parcel/Courier/Goods Transport business is eligible out of which one yar experience of running business of parcel & courier services in any of the State Road Transport Corporations in India, is a must”

¶13

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO.359 OF 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 907 OF 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1202 OF 2012

¶16

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶17

¶18

2] It was the contention of the petitioners therein that the said condition was so imposed so as to favour a party which is already in fray and to narrow down the competition. It was also contended that the said condition was not in the interest of the Corporation itself.

¶19

3] Writ petition No. 907 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioner, who support the contention which was opposed by the other petitioners and seeks a writ of Mandamus that since the said condition is duly qualified, his tender should be accepted, which, according to him, was not permitted to be submitted by the competitors and that too taking recourse to manhandling the petitioner's representative.

¶20

4] Prima facie, we are of the view that such a condition is not in the interest of the Corporation, inasmuch as, it would narrow down the competition.

¶21

5] Now, a settlement is made on behalf of the respondent Corporation, that the respondent Corporation wold not insist upon the condition impugned in W.P. No. 359 of 2012

¶22

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO.359 OF 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 907 OF 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1202 OF 2012

¶25

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶26

¶27

and W.P. No. 1012 of 2012, and the Corporation would replace the said condition with the following condition :-

¶28

“3.1 The Tenderer who has three years experience in the field of Parcel/Courier/Goods Transport business in India, is eligible.”

¶29

6] The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf or the respondent Corporation further makes a statement in view of the above, the earlier tender notice shall stand withdrawn and a fresh tender notice would be issued, having revised condition No. 3.1 as above.

¶30

7] In that view of the matter, nothing survives in the petitions. Writ petitions are disposed of by taking on record the statement made on behalf of the (MSRTC) Corporation. Needles to state that the (MSRTC) Corporation would be free to proceed in accordance with the fresh tender process, by substituting condition No.3.1, with revised condition No.3.1, as aforesaid.

¶31

[SUNIL .P. DESHMUKH,J.]

¶32

grt/-

M/S Madhur Courier Services v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Madhur Courier Services v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Manikrao Attamwad Vs the State of Mah. and Ors.

Murlidhar Sursing Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sushil Gangadhar Talikhedkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vijay Asaram Gunjal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mohd. Abdul Kadar Sk. Amir Kadri Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Parveen Aslaml Beg Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.