Dismissed

Shri Shantikumar S/O Gendalal Patni v. State of Maharashtra Public Works Dept., Ministry of Industries Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC21 Sept 2016WP/3643/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a tender notice condition requiring experience with government bodies as arbitrary. The court found the condition reasonable, noted all four bidders met it, and dismissed the petition for lack of merit and non-attendance at the pre-bid conference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was found to be without merit.

Shri Shantikumar S/O Gendalal Patni Vs State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

21.09.wp.3643.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3643/2016

¶5

(Shri Shantikumar s/o Gendalal Patni vs. State of Maharashtra and others )

¶6

.............................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

.............................................................................................................................................. Mr. M.Anilkumar, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.1 Respondent No. 2 deleted. Mr. D.M. Kakani, Advocate for Respondent No.3

¶8

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ DATED : 21^st September, 2016

¶9

Heard.

¶10

It is the contention of the petitioner that Clause No. 3.19 of the Tender Notice which is issued by the respondent no.3, leads to monopoly and denial of participation to the bidders at large. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such a condition imposes restrictions on the right of a party like the petitioner, to participate in the tender process. He submitted that unless the experience and that too of working with the Government, semi-Government, local bodies is available, the party cannot participate in the bids.

¶11

For appreciating the contention, it will be appropriate to refer to condition No.3.19 of the Tender Notice.

¶12

The tender notice requires a prior experience of working for last three years of the specifications stated therein with

¶13

21.09.wp.3643.16

¶14

¶15

Government, semi-Government, local bodies like Municipal Corporation/Council/MIDC/ MJP /CIDCO etc. It is always for the person inviting tender to specify the conditions which shall describe the eligibility. Unless it is found that the condition is palpably arbitrary or incorporated only to suit a particular party, it will not be permissible for this Court to interfere with the same.

¶16

Perusal of the condition would reveal that the experience of working with various Government or semi-Government authority or local bodies is a precondition for a participant to bid in the tender. In the present case, all four persons who had submitted their bids, were possessing the requisite certificate, as required under Clause 3.19 of the Tender Notice.

¶17

It could thus be seen that the argument advanced is not only legally erroneous but factually erroneous. All the four persons have participated in the bids possessing the required qualification.

¶18

Apart from that, the petitioner who had failed to attend the pre-bid conference, is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petition is found to be without merit and, as such, dismissed.

¶19

JUDGEJUDGE

sahare

21.09.wp.3643.16

C E R T I F I C A T E

¶24

“ I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.”

¶25

Uploaded by: N.B.Sahare P.S.

¶26

Uploaded on: 22.09.2016.

Shri Shantikumar S/O Gendalal Patni v. State of Maharashtra Public Works Dept., Ministry of Industries Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shantikumar S/O Gendalal Patni v. State of Maharashtra Public Works Dept., Ministry of Industries Mumbai 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

Dr. Chandrashekhar Sureshrao Dhage and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Dept. of Public Health Manatralaya., Mumbai and Others

Dr. Ambedkar Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Nagpur Throughits Secretary, Kishor B. Mankar Vs the Chairman, Nagpur Improvment Trust, Nagpur and 2 Others

M/S Anuraj Enterprises Thr. Proprietor, Nagpur Vs the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Mumbai and Another

Hafiza Munaf Minority Education and Multipurpose Society Buldhana and Another Vs State of Maharashtra School Education and Sport Dept., Thr. Secretary Mumbai and Others

Shri. Pawan S/O. Jhanaksingh Gusinghe Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Dept. of General Admin. Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Archana D/O Suresh Shelke Vs the State of Maha. through Its Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Deptt. and Other