Dismissed

Shri. Daulatrao Shankarrao Ghorpade v. the Regional Dy. Commissioner, Social Welfare, Pune Division, Pune and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Jun 2014WP/10729/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging tender conditions for food supply to 37 hostels across five districts. Holding that the demand for bank solvency and earnest money deposits was not arbitrary, the Court found no misuse of power and dismissed the challenge.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected; the tender conditions were upheld.

Shri. Daulatrao Shankarrao Ghorpade Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

wp-10729.13

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10729 OF 2013

¶6

Shri Daulatrao Shankarrao Ghorpade … Petitioner Vs. The Regional Dy. Commissioner and Anr. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Anilkumar K. Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATE : 26^th JUNE, 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The challenge by the Petitioner in this Petition is to a tender notice dated 23rd October, 2013. The tender was for providing food to 37 hostels of students in five Districts in Pune Division. The hostels are being run by the Social Development Department of the State Government.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that earlier, for several years, separate tenders were invited for providing food in the hostels in individual Districts. But only for this year, a common tender has been invited for 37 hostels in five Districts. He pointed out that there is a requirement of furnishing bank solvency in the sum of Rs.50 lakhs and earnest money deposit of Rs.30 lakhs.

¶12

1 of 3

¶13

2 wp-10729.13

¶14

The first submission is that such conditions make the entire tender process a high profile and the very object of providing work to various categories of societies is frustrated. He, therefore, submitted that the aforesaid conditions are arbitrary and the action of inviting tender for five Districts is arbitrary.

¶15

A reply has been filed by Shri Anil Pandurang Kamble, the Regional Deputy Commissioner, Pune Division. Reliance has been placed by the said officer on a Government Resolution dated 20 th September, 2013 and the guidelines issued by the Commissioner of Social Welfare. It is stated that the object behind providing food contract to one contractor is to maintain uniformity, quality and standard throughout the division consisting of five Districts. It is pointed out that the Unemployed Persons' Cooperative Societies and Lok Seva Kendras have been exempted from the requirement of depositing the amount of securing deposit. It is pointed out that considering the policy of providing all Government Services by one window system and reducing expenditure and time in tendering process, the tender process for individual Districts had become cumbersome.

¶16

We have perused the terms and conditions of the tender. Clause 10 provides for giving priority to the Cooperative Societies of

¶17

2 of 3

¶18

3 wp-10729.13

¶19

Scheduled Castes, Mahila Bachat Gats of Scheduled Castes, etc. The scope of interference in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to the conditions of Tender is well settled. In the case of Michigan Rubber Vs. State of Karnataka¹ , the Apex Court has dealt with the said issue. The Apex Court held that the scope in such matters is very restricted. It was held that a greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities in formulating the conditions of a tender document and awarding the contracts and no interference should be made in the matter of formulating the conditions of a tender document unless the action of tender authority is found to be malicious or misuse of its statutory powers.

¶20

We find nothing arbitrary in the conditions provided in tender. There is no case is made out that the conditions are malicious or amount to misuse of statutory powers. The reasons for setting out the conditions have been incorporated in the affidavitinreply. Hence, no case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The petition is rejected.

¶21

(A. S. CHANDURKAR, J ) (A.S.OKA, J )

¶22

1 (2012) 8 SCC 216

¶23

3 of 3

Shri. Daulatrao Shankarrao Ghorpade v. the Regional Dy. Commissioner, Social Welfare, Pune Division, Pune and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Daulatrao Shankarrao Ghorpade v. the Regional Dy. Commissioner, Social Welfare, Pune Division, Pune and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Mayani Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Mayani, through Mr. Prakash Ganpati Chothe Vs the Judge of the Co-Operative Court, Satara and Ors.

Ramchandra Baburao Kachare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Baby Sapura Yakub Mhaldar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Matoshree Public Library, Wathar, through Chairman and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dept and Anr.

Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs the Collector, Alibagh and Anr.

Abhijit Hanumant Sonawane Vs Union of India through the Petroleum Ministry and Ors.