Disposed

Ashish Subhash Agrawal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Jul 2016WP/3839/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging the public tender allotment for alleged violation of Chief Vigilance Commission guidelines. The court directed the Chief Engineer, PWD, to hold an inquiry into the procedure.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Chief Engineer, PWD, Nasik Division, to hold an inquiry into the tender process and take appropriate steps if procedural violation is noticed.

Ashish Subhash Agrawal Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp383916.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3839 OF 2016

¶4

Ashish Subhash Agrawal

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra & others

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr.Shrikant Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.R.Kale, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.S.S.Choudhary, advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶10

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶11

K.L.WADANE, JJ. DATE : 01st July, 2016

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1 It is contended on behalf of Respondents that the tender work was allotted in the month of April 2016 and the period prescribed for completion of tender work is six months. It is informed that the tender work has almost been carried out and as such, no useful purpose would be served in entertaining the petition.

¶14

2 It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner that tender process has not been followed properly by Respondent No.4. It is contended that in response to the tender notice, six tender documents were received and during scrutiny of tender documents, except the successful bidder i.e. Respondent No.5, all other tenderers were disqualified.

¶15

3 It is contended that there are certain guidelines issued

¶16

{2}

¶17

wp383916.odt

¶18

by the Chief Vigilance Commission (CVC) in respect of observance of tender process by the public authorities. It is contended that there was no proper competition since other tender applicants, except one, were held to be disqualified. It has been informed that as per the guidelines issued by the Chief Vigilance Commission, there shall be at least three valid tender applicants and the successful tenderer shall have to be amongst at least three successful bidders. In the instant matter, the guidelines issued by the Chief Vigilance Commission, which are of mandatory character, appeared to have been flouted.

¶19

4 The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Nasik Division, Nasik, shall hold an inquiry in respect of tender process conducted by Respondent No.4 and shall take appropriate steps, if any procedural violation is noticed.

¶20

5 In view of the above direction, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

R.M.BORDE

¶22

K.L.WADANE R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

adb/wp383916

Ashish Subhash Agrawal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Subhash Agrawal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjundas Navalrai Rizwani Thr Gpa Harish Thakurdas Rizwani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas Bajirao Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anant Chunilal Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jitendra Kantilal Jain Vs the State of Maharshtra and Others

Babasaheb Thakaji Khaladkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Trimurti Pawan Pratishthan, Ahmednagar Vs State of Maharashtra and Others