Disposed

Shree Balaji Minings, Beed v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC14 Jan 2015WP/174/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged sand-belt auction alleging cartelization due to disclosure of E-tender offers. Respondents assured re-conducting the process de novo. Court held petition disposed as grievance redressed by administrative undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed as the respondent undertook to redress the grievance by re-conducting the auction process de novo.

Shree Balaji Minings, Beed Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

WP No.174/2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.174 OF 2015

¶5

Shree Balaji Minings
Through its Proprietor - PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1) The State of Maharashtra
 and others. - RESPONDENTS
*****

¶8

Mr.Devdatt P.Palodkar, Advocate for Petitioner/s
Mrs.VA Shinde,AGP for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : R.M.BORDE & N.W.SAMBRE,JJ.

¶10

DATE : 14th January,2015.

¶11

PER COURT:

¶12

1)The petitioner is taking exception to
auction proceedings in respect of allotment of
sand-spot conducted in pursuance to Tender Notice
published on 24.12.2014. The petitioner states
that the offers received during E-tendering
process were made available for consideration to
all the bidders, who participated in process of
E-tendering as well as E-bidding and disclosure
of such offers has resulted in formation of
cartel by the contractors, as a result of which,
revenue generation during auction process has
been adversely affected.

¶13

2 WP No.174/2015

¶14

2)In accordance with the policy in respect
of allotment of sand-belts, contractor/bidder
desirous of acquiring sand-belts on lease basis,
is required to submit E-tender. On consideration
of offer received during E-tender process, the
authorities are expected to hold e-bidding
process. It is informed by the respondents that
the contractors/bidders, who fail to participate
during E-tendering process are eligible to
participate in E-bidding process, meaning
thereby, it is not necessary for the
contractor/bidder to participate in both the
process i.e. E-tendering as well as E-bidding.
It is also clarified that the highest offer
during E-tendering process may not necessarily
participate in E-biding process and his bid
received during E-tendering process shall also be
considered to be valid for all the purposes.

¶15

3)Learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, in order to substantiate his
contention that as a result of disclosure of the
material particulars in respect of offer of each
of the bidder, recorded during E-tendering
process, revenue generation of the State
Government, is affected and lowered down to great
extent,pointed out that the highest bids received
during E-bidding process are only within the
range of ten to fifteen thousand rupees, over and

¶16

3 WP No.174/2015

¶17

above the highest offer quoted during E-tendering
process, which is considered to be a revised
benchmark for E-bidding.

¶18

.Learned Counsel has pointed out that
while undertaking the process of auction of sand-
belts in Beed district, the authorities did not
make disclosure of the highest offer received
during e-tendering process and the names of
individual bidders, who participated in E-
tendering process were also withheld. As a
result of adopting such procedure, as against
offset price prescribed by the State Government
at Rs.6,15,407/-, highest bid received for sand-
belt of Manubai Jawala Tq. Georai district Beed
was for an amount of Rs.46,65,460/-. In case of
sand-belt at Chatra Borgaon Tq. Majalgaon
Maradasgaon Tq. Pathri, as against the offset
price of Rs.23,21,567/-, the highest bid
received during E-bidding was to the tune of
Rs.2,40,000/-. In contrast to these offer, so
far as Aurangabad District is concerned, in
respect of sand belt at village Waghadi, Tq.
Paithan, which is also a part of Godavari river,
as against the offset price prescribed at
Rs.47,40,000/-, the highest bid received during
E-bidding was only Rs.10,000/- above prescribed
limit, i.e. 47,50,000/-. In case of Purangaon
Tq. Vaijapur, sand belt, as against the offset
price of Rs.35,12,796/-, the highest bid received

¶19

4 WP No.174/2015

¶20

during E-bidding was only with a difference of
Rs.5,000/- at Rs.35,17,796/-. So far as village
Bhalgaon Tq. Vaijapur is concerned, as against
offset price of Rs.75,20,700/- the price offered
during E-bidding was only to the extent of
Rs.75,25,700/-, i.e. marginal difference of
Rs.5,000/-. Similar is the case in respect of
sand belts in Sillod and Phulambri talukas,
covering a stretch of Purna and Girja rivers.

¶21

4)The facts and figures disclosed above,
go to substantiate the contention of the
petitioner that the contractors have formed a
ring/cartel and quoted the figures, which are
marginally higher than the offset prices
prescribed by the State Government so far as
Aurangabad district is concerned.

¶22

5) Learned AGP, on instructions from the
Additional Collector, Aurangabad, makes a
statement that the entire process of E-bidding
and E-auction so far as Aurangabad district is
concerned, would be undertaken afresh and the
tender process conducted up to the present stage
would be treated as cancelled. It is further
clarified that such of those contractors, who
deposited the amount, while recording their
participation in e-tendering or e-bidding process
and who have deposited the amount, would be

¶23

5 WP No.174/2015

¶24

considered eligible for their participation
during fresh process and amount deposited by them
would be taken into account and in the event of
any shortfall only differential amount would be
claimed.

¶25

6) So far as the contention raised by the petitioner that only such of those bidders, who participated in E-tendering process, shall be permitted to take part in E-bidding process, is not acceptable as the scheme does not stipulate such restrictions. In this regard, it may be noted that an identical challenge raised before the Division Bench at Nagpur in the matter of Arunodaya Magaswargiya Mazdoor Kamgar Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Reported in 2013 (2) Bom.C.R.43. While

¶26

considering the objection raised in the aforesaid
petition, the Division Bench has made
observations in paragraph 23 of the judgment,
which are quoted thus, -

¶27

“23. The purpose of resorting to e-
tender or e-auction and object
behind it is not in dispute. After

¶28

e-tender, the highest tendered value
has been recognized as offset price

¶29

and e-auction has commenced from
that stage. Thus, while offering
bids in e-tendering process, each

¶30

6 WP No.174/2015

¶31

bidder was given opportunity to
quote maximum value as per his best
judgment. Thereafter, the process of
e-auction (as named and devised)
gave him second opportunity which in
factislikelynegotiation
amongst/betweentheregistered
bidders only....”

¶32

7)Thus, the contention of the petitioner
that participation in E-bidding process is
available and shall be restricted only to such of
those offerers/bidders, who participate in e-
tendering process, is devoid of merit. It would
be open for all the registered bidders, who
participatedine-tenderingprocess,to

¶33

participate in E-bidding process as well. Those
who desires to participate in e-bidding process
deposit the requisite amount with the authorities
and register themselves, shall also be

¶34

considered as registered bidders and their
participation shall be permitted. An option shall
be available to bidder who participates in E-
tender process only and does not take part in E-
bidding to keep his original offer alive and
valid for consideration.

¶35

8)It is also informed that the tender
process initiated by the respondents, which is

¶36

7 WP No.174/2015

¶37

the subject matter of challenge in this petition,
has not come to an end and the bidders have not
been communicated any decision after conclusion
of E-bidding process by the authorities. In
this view of the matter, none of the bidders, who
participated in the process are affected since
there is no concluded contract.

¶38

9) In view of the statement made by learned AGP on behalf of the Additional Collector informing that they will initiate the auction process of sand-belts/spots in Aurangabad district de novo , the grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant petition, stands redressed and the petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶39

 (N.W.SAMBRE) (R.M.BORDE)
 JUDGEJUDGE

¶40

bdv/

Shree Balaji Minings, Beed v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Balaji Minings, Beed v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Tukaram Namdeo Tomaskar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahadeo Ramling Baraskar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Miraji Vyankat Maindad Vs the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad and Others

Jijamata Mahila Bachat Gat, Bhamburwadi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Navvikas Mahila Bachat Gat, Dattawadi (Govindwadi) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sukdeo Ramji Tapal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others