Dismissed

Sandeep Sudhakr Deshpande v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2014NMW/275/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a PIL challenging the Bhayandur Municipal Corporation's decision to procure school items without fresh tenders. Relying on contract clauses allowing 25% additional supply, the Bench held the action was reasonable to meet urgent academic year needs with 4 lakh students.

What did the court decide?

Notice of motion restraining the Corporation from implementing the resolution without fresh tenders was dismissed and disposed of.

Sandeep Sudhakr Deshpande Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

kambli

nml-212-14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.212 OF 2014 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.60 OF 2012

¶7

Sandeep Sudhakar Deshpande ...Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Arif Bookwala, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Surel Shah and Mr.Ram Singh for the petitioner. Mr.E.P.Bharucha,Sr.Advodate with Mr.J.J.Xavier and Mrs.S.M.Modle for respondents Nos. 2 to 4-BMC. Mr.J.S.Saluja, AGP for respondent No.1-State.

¶9

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SANKLECHA, J. DATE : 9 APRIL 2014

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

PIL petitioner has taken out this notice of motion for an order of this Court restraining the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai from implementing the Resolution of the Standing Committee dated 21 February 2014 in respect of 27 school items for the academic year 2014-15.

¶12

The grievance being made by the PIL petitioner is that without inviting tenders the Corporation has decided to purchase items like school uniforms for the children studying in the schools being run by the Municipal Corporation.

1 of 3

kambli

nml-212-14

Mr.Bharucha, learned Sr.Counsel for the Municipal Corporation points out from the affidavit-in-reply dated 7 April 2014 of the Executive Engineer, Central Purchase Department of the Municipal Corporation that the contract awarded for two years commencing from 27 July 2012 would expire on 26 June 2014 and that clause (4) of the said contract provides that the contractor shall be bound to supply to the extent of 25% over and above the scheduled quantity and that such additional quantity would have to be provided by the contractor at the contractual rate itself.

¶18

Learned counsel further, under instructions, states that the quantity which is going to be procured by way of additional quantity is being purchased under clause (4) of the contract along with the quantity already purchased as per the schedule to the contract will be sufficient for providing school uniforms and other items to the school children for the academic year 2014-15. It is, therefore, submitted that it will be in the interest of the Municipal Corporation and the school children to purchase the additional quantity from the same contractor instead of inviting fresh tenders and taking a risk of higher rates being quoted in the year 2014 as against the contractual rates specified in 2012.

2 of 3

nml-212-14

kambli

Having regard to the fact that the academic year 201415 will commence from the middle of June 2014 and that the contractor will be required to supply school uniforms and shoes as per the required size of each individual school student, running into more than 4 lacs students in about 1100 primary/secondary schools being run by the Municipal Corporation, in our view the impugned decision of the Municipal Corporation cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary.

¶24

Notice of motion is accordingly dismissed and stands disposed of.

¶25

It goes without saying that for purchase of any school items to be supplied to the school children for the academic year 2015-16, the Municipal Corporation will follow the tendering process as per the new procurement policy.

¶26

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

(M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)

¶28

3 of 3

Sandeep Sudhakr Deshpande v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Sudhakr Deshpande v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 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

Ushdev International Ltd. Vs Sims Copper Sdn Bhd and 4 Ors.

Shri. Nainesh Suresh Dolas Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Home Minister, Home Dept and Ors.

Vinay S. Sonpal and Ors. Vs B.M.C. and Ors.

Gyasuddin Kifayatulla Zariwala Vs M/S. Sirsiwala Realty and Ors.

Ram Ramdas Samudre Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Nucleus Chem Oil Private Limited Vs Camlin Fine Sciences Limited