Dismissed

Mahavir Agencies through Its Proprietor Ajaykumar Manikchand Katariya v. the Commissioner and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Nov 2014WP/9943/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning the cancellation of a tender for supplying notebooks, the Court held that it was not inclined to interfere given subsequent developments. However, it directed the Corporation to intimate all participants regarding the cancellation if not already done before dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed with a direction to inform participants about the cancellation of the tender process, if not already done.

Mahavir Agencies through Its Proprietor… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

spb/

¶2

20wp9943-14.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9943 OF 2014

¶5

M/s. Mahavir Agencies … Petitioner.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune & Ors. … Respondents.

¶8

¶9

Mr. Pankaj D. Purway for the Petitioner. Mr. R.S. Khadapkar for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Madhav Jamdar for Respondent No. 6.

¶10

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A. P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 10 NOVEMBER, 2014 P.C. :

¶11

1 Heard finally.

¶12

2 The Petitioner challenges the tender process initiated for purchasing the note books to be supplied to the schools run by the Corporation in Pune district.

¶13

3 Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has placed the original record before us to point out that on 25^th August, 2014, the Additional Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation recorded that the tender process had been cancelled. It is submitted that the Petitioner was not qualified

1/3

Borey

20wp9943-14.sxw

spb/

to participate in the tender process, as the report of the State Laboratory was adverse to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Corporation decided to cancel the tender process. The learned counsel for the Corporation submits that he has not been instructed to make any statement as to whether the participating bidders were informed that the subject tender process has been cancelled. Respondent No.6Sunraj Printpack Industries has filed an affidavitinreply through its ProprietressSunita Rajesh Nahar. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that in fact Sunraj Printpack had participated in the tender process in question.

¶19

4 It was submitted during the course of hearing that after noticing that the Petitioner was not qualified to participate in the tender process and the rates quoted were on the higher side, the tender process was cancelled. The Corporation, thereafter, decided to place the order for purchasing material with manufacturer. The order was, accordingly, placed. It was submitted that the Corporation was to save substantial amount of lakhs of rupees in adopting this method.

¶20

5 In view of the subsequent developments taken place, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter. However, if the Corporation did not intimate cancellation of the tender process then we direct the Corporation to intimate

2/3

Borey

spb/

20wp9943-14.sxw

the participants in respect of the cancellation of the subject tender process.

¶26

6 Writ Petition is dismissed with the above direction.

¶27

(A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)

¶28

3/3

¶29

Borey

Mahavir Agencies through Its Proprietor Ajaykumar Manikchand Katariya v. the Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahavir Agencies through Its Proprietor Ajaykumar Manikchand Katariya v. the Commissioner 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

Kumudchandra M Sanghvi Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Avelino Menino Furtado Vs Deputy Director

Akhil Pipeline Vikas Samiti Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Bhalchandra Maloji Shirkar Vs Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai and Anr.

Jayashree Vijay Mundaware Vs the Principal / Head Mistree of Ashoka Universal School, Chandsi/Wadala, Nashik and Ors.

Miss Aiman Md. Aleem Dandu, through Father, Shri. Md. Aleem Ahmedsab Dandu Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Development and Ors.