Dismissed

Pankaj Stone Crushers, Sangola, through Prop. Shri. Satish Bhagwan Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Oct 2014WP/11072/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the exclusion of the petitioner from an e-tender for sand extraction on the ground of non-compliance with EMD deposit instructions. The court held that the petitioner knowingly deposited the amount in the wrong account despite clear tender directions, and rejected the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is rejected.

Pankaj Stone Crushers, Sangola, through Prop… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

WP11072-29.10

1/4

PNP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.11072 OF 2013

¶7

Pankan Stone Crushers, Sangola versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶9

...Petitioner.

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Machhindra A. Patil for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶13

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

¶14

A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

¶15

^th October 2014.

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the Respondents.

¶18

A notice dated 14^th November 2013 of E-tender was issued by the Additional Collector, Solapur for auction of right to extract sand in terms of the Bombay Minor Minerals Rules, 1955. The Petitioner intended to fill in the tender by following online process. The case of the Petitioner is that he deposited registration fees in the account of the Third Respondent. Thereafter the login email ID and password were provided to the Petitioner. His case is that last date fixed for deposit of EMD (Earnest Money Deposit) was 25^th November 2013. An averment has been made in

WP11072-29.10

2/4

PNP

the Petition and in particular in paragraph 6 thereof that he did not receive any e-mail from the Third Respondent as regards the deposit of EMD and therefore, he visited the office of the Third Respondent in regard to the payment of EMD. Therefore, on 25^th November 2013 the Petitioner deposited EMD of Rs.3,26,031/- and a sum of Rs.2,17,031/- in the account of the Third Respondent. The Third Respondent is a limited company. The grievance made in the Petition is that though the Petitioner deposited the EMD, he was not allowed to participate in the tender process.

¶23

The submission of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was not made aware of the procedure for deposit of the EMD and therefore, he deposited the EMD amount in the account of the Third Respondent company. His submission is that he made substantial compliance with the tender condition regarding the deposit of the EMD and therefore, his bid ought to have been considered.

¶24

The learned AGP appearing for the First and Second Respondents relied upon an affidavit in reply of Mr. Vishnu Dolas, Incharge Mining Officer, Solapur. He pointed out that the Petitioner accepted that he wrongly deposited the EMD amount in the account of the Third Respondent and in fact by sending e-mail, he demanded refund of the said amount. He relied upon a printout of the e-mail dated 26^th November 2013 sent by the Petitioner to the Third Respondent.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner sought time to take

WP11072-29.10

3/4

PNP

instructions regarding the e-mail relied upon by the Respondents. The Petitioner is relying upon several e-mails which are annexed to the Petition. The e-mail address of the Petitioner mentioned in the copies of e- mails addressed to the Petitioner is the same as mentioned in Exhibit A to the affidavit in reply of Shri Dolas. Moreover, the affidavit in reply has been filed on 21^st July 2014. Therefore, we decline to grant time to the Petitioner.

¶30

We have considered the submissions. We have perused the tender notice. The tender notice records that all the information regarding the procedure to be followed for participation in e-tender process has been set out on the website mentioned in the advertisement. It specifically records that EMD equivalent to 25 % of the upset price shall be deposited in the account of the District Collector, Solapur by following the online method, the details of which have been provided on the website. Therefore, the advertisement itself records that the EMD was to be deposited in the account of the District Collector, Solapur. The Petitioner was aware that the EMD amount was to be deposited with the Collector in his account.

¶31

Going by the averments made in the Petition, it is the case of the Petitioner that for deposit of the EMD, he visited the office of the Third Respondent company and ultimately deposited the EMD amount in the account of the Third Respondent. In view of what is stated in the tender notice, the Petitioner was fully aware that the EMD was required to be deposited in the account of the District Collector at Solapur. The condition

WP11072-29.10

4/4

PNP

regarding deposit of the EMD amount, in the facts of the case, is certainly an essential condition. Moreover, the Third Respondent which is a limited company was not authorized to accept the EMD amount on behalf of the State Government or the Collector. As stated earlier, Exhibit A to the affidavit in reply of Shri Dolas is an e-mail sent by the Petitioner himself on 26^th November 2013 at 5.30 p.m. in which he accepted that by mistake, he deposited the EMD amount in the account of the Third Respondent and in fact, he requested for refund. The Petitioner has not even referred to the said e-mail dated 26^th November 2013 in the Petition.

¶36

Therefore, there was every justification for the First and Second Respondents not to allow participation of the Petitioner in the e-tender process. We see no infirmity or illegality in the action of the said Respondents. There is not merit in the Petition. Accordingly the Petition is rejected.

Pankaj Stone Crushers, Sangola, through Prop. Shri. Satish Bhagwan Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Stone Crushers, Sangola, through Prop. Shri. Satish Bhagwan Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Shri. Vijay Gunga Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dinanath Rajaram Ballal Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balasaheb Sitaram Auti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tushar Ashok Waghere and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Supreme Agencies, through Sole Prop. Subhash Ramchandra Sonawane and Ors. Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and Ors.

M/S. Vardhan Construction Company, through Partner, Shri. Amit Vardhan Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.