Disposed

M/S Asht Bhuja Fire Safety and Multi Services and Enterprises Shoplet Thru Its Prop. Asht Bhuja Nat v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC19 Jul 2016WP/1305/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a non-competitive tender allotment. The Court accepted the Respondent's suggestion to allow the interim contractor to continue work while a fresh tender was initiated within sixty days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition disposed of; interim contractor permitted to work during fresh tender.

M/S Asht Bhuja Fire Safety and Multi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp130516.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1305 OF 2016

¶4

M/s Asht Bhuja Fire Safety and Multi Services and Enterprises

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India & others

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr.Rahul G. Joshi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.B.Kulkarni, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.K.B.Chaudhari, A.G.P. for Respondents No.2 and 3. Mr.C.V.Joshi, advocate for Respondent No.4. Mr.S.S.Vidwauns, advocate for Respondents No.5 & 6.

¶10

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶11

K.L.WADANE, JJ. DATE : 19^th July, 2016

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1 The tender work was initially allotted by Respondents for supplying man power in favour of Respondent No.4 for a period commencing from 01.01.2016 up to 31.12.2016. However, Respondent No.4 abruptly withdrawn tender work for the reason that he was not permitted to renew the license.

¶14

2 As a result of abrupt withdrawal of the work by Respondent No.4, there was an emergent situation and considering element of necessity, the work was allotted to the next lowest tenderer i.e. Respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 is carrying out the tender work which was initially allotted to Respondent No.4.

¶15

{2}

¶16

wp130516.odt

¶17

3 Respondents do not controvert the contentions raised by petitioner that in such a situation, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to initiate fresh tender process and select an agency.

¶18

4 In the facts of the case and considering difficulty disclosed by the Respondents, we deem it appropriate to accept the suggestion put forth by the Respondents in paragraph no.8 of the undertaking tendered today. It is contended that fresh tender process may take 30 to 45 days and during intervening period, Respondent No.5, who has been allotted the tender work, may be permitted to carry out the tender work.

¶19

5 The suggestion put forth by Respondents, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is accepted. Respondents shall complete the tender process, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within sixty days and in the meanwhile, it would be open for the Respondents to continue to secure services from Respondents No.5 and 6 – agencies.

¶20

6 In view of above, writ petition stands disposed of.

K.L.WADANE

JUDGE

R.M.BORDE

JUDGE

adb/wp130516

M/S Asht Bhuja Fire Safety and Multi Services and Enterprises Shoplet Thru Its Prop. Asht Bhuja Nat v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Asht Bhuja Fire Safety and Multi Services and Enterprises Shoplet Thru Its Prop. Asht Bhuja Nat v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gangabai Vitthalrao Ghuge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rustum Babasaheb Pawar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Syed Masood Kadri U/G Father Abdul Rahman Kadri Vs Shaikh Imran Shaikh Osman and Others

Dattatray Bhanudas Adatrao Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chetan Sanjiv Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jalindarnath Ramchandra Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others