Disposed

D.R. Services through Its Partner v. Shri. Satish Shravge and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jul 2018WP/6033/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a public procurement dispute directed authorities to issue a fresh tender for toll collection, clarified the petitioner's right to participate, and declined to interfere pending the new process while keeping favouritism allegations open.

What did the court decide?

Fresh tender to be issued; petitioner entitled to participate; tender completed per schedule; favouritism allegations kept open.

D.R. Services through Its Partner Vs Shri… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1/4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6033 of 2018

D.R. Services

... Petitioner

V/s.

Shri Satish Shravge & ors. ... Respondents

¶8

Mr. Dinesh P. Adsule for the petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP for respondents 3 and 5. Mr. Kishore Patil, Executive Engineer, PWD multistory Division, present.

¶10

Lata Digitally signedby Lata Sunil Sunil Panjwani Date: 2018.07.25 Panjwani 13:02:48 +0530

¶11

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.

¶12

23^rd July, 2018.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

An e-tender was invited for Toll Collection for Kamothe and

¶15

Kopra Toll station on Sion – Panvel Highway. The petitioner's tender

¶16

was not accepted. According to respondents, the petitioner failed to upload certain necessary documents which were required for

¶17

2/4

¶18

considering valid tender form. Alongwith petitioner there are 2 other participants (total 3 participants). The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned AGP states that tenders are yet to be opened.

¶19

In the meanwhile, certain developments have taken place. On instructions, the learned AGP submits that fresh tender notice in respect of same subject matter will be published by Friday.

¶20

We have perused the record placed before us, considered the affidavit-in-reply.

¶21

In the facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere. Even otherwise the respondents have decided to issue a fresh tender. The petitioner has also been informed that he is entitled to participate in the tender process.

¶22

We clarify that on respondent's issuing a fresh tender as stated

¶23

3/4

¶24

above, the petitioner herein is entitled to participate in the tender process.

¶25

The tender process shall be completed in accordance with the programme schedule as mentioned in the tender.

¶26

It is clarified that we have not addressed the issue in respect of allegations made by the petitioner regarding favouritism. All such contentions are kept open. After the applications are received against the fresh tender, needless to mention that respondents would take necessary steps without any further delay.

¶27

The learned Counsel submits that at present a person who has been temporarily nominated by the respondents is collecting toll charges, therefore, it is necessary in the interest of revenue of the State and larger public interest that person duly selected by following required procedure is awarded the contract.

¶28

4/4

¶29

With aforesaid directions, Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶30

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of the order.

¶31

(G.S.KULKARNI, J) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶32

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

D.R. Services through Its Partner v. Shri. Satish Shravge and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.R. Services through Its Partner v. Shri. Satish Shravge and Ors.

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

Vijay K Sawant Vs Abbot Anthony Quinny

Vijay K Sawant Vs Abbot Anthony Quinny

'X' Age 16 Minor through Legal Guardian Mumtaz Hussain Patel Vs the Union of India through Secretary and Ors.

Mrs. Trupti Bajirao Borate Vs Internal Disputes Committee through Its Chairman and Ors.

Mr. Balu Namdeo Gadge and Ors. Vs Chief Executive Officer City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Shivkant v. Chaudhary Vs Dinesh Chandra Maingi