Dismissed

M/S Meraj Trading Company through Its Proprietor Arifkhan Mohamadkhan Pathan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC24 Aug 2017WP/2279/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the award of a tender to respondents, alleging their registration certificates did not authorize supply of specified commodities. The bench noted respondents had already commenced supply and that their offer was more competitive. Exercising Article 226 jurisdiction, the court found no loss to public finances and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition stands dismissed with no interference in the tender award.

M/S Meraj Trading Company through Its… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

( 1 ) wp2279.17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2279 OF 2017

¶4

M/s. Meraj Trading Company
Through its proprietor
Arifkhan Mohamadkhan Pathan

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Mr.P.S. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent/State.

¶10

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :24.08.2017

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

1.Heard. The petitioner is objecting to award of

¶13

tender the work in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. It

¶14

is contention of the petitioner that registration
certificates produced by the concerned respondents are
not in conformity with the terms of tender notice. There

¶15

is no specification in the registration certificate in
respect of the entitlement or authorization to deal with

¶16

the specified commodities, which are part of supply items

¶17

under the tender offer. The authorities while

¶18

scrutinizing the proposal noticed the requisite

¶19

certificates of tender furnished by the concerned
respondents to authorize them to supply the requisite
food commodities and as such the respondents are held

¶20

eligible to participate in the tender process by the
Scrutiny Committee. It is further noticed that the offer
made by the respondents is more competitive than that of

¶21

the petitioner. There is no loss to the public finances.

¶22

It is further informed that the respondents have already
commenced supply since last three months.

¶23

2.In the circumstances, in exercise of extra

¶24

ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

¶25

Constitution of India, no interference is called for.

¶26

The petition being devoid of substance, stands dismissed.

¶27

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.]

¶28

 [R.M.BORDE,J.]

¶29

snk/2017/AUG17/ wp2279.17

M/S Meraj Trading Company through Its Proprietor Arifkhan Mohamadkhan Pathan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Meraj Trading Company through Its Proprietor Arifkhan Mohamadkhan Pathan 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

Navnital Jivanlal Bhatiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anuja Anand Kumbarwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gagankumar Sayanna Mokmod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vishnudas Gopal Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Baburao Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nitin Rama Padvi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others