Petitioner challenged the rejection of their bid for supplying meals to Bhusawal Prison due to missing documents. The High Court held that since the work order was already issued, the petition need not be entertained and dismissed it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP 236/19
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
15 WRIT PETITION NO.236 OF 2019
DEVYANI BAHUUDDESHIYA MAHILA SANSTHA THROUGH PRESIDENT
SUNDARBAI SAKHARAM PATIL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Bora Satyajit S.
AGP for Respondent nos.1 & 2 : Shri S.P. Sonpawale
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL, CJ &
V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE: 25.03.2019
PER COURT :
1]The petitioner participated in the tender bid to
supply meal to Bhusawal Prison. The petitioner's
technical bid was rejected and, therefore, he could not
participate further.
2]Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
tender process got completed and work order has been
issued The learned counsel submits that the authorities
concerned ought to have given some reasoning as to why
petitioner's tender bid was rejected.
3]In the affidavit in reply, copy of which is supplied
WP 236/19
- 2 -
to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent
no.2 states in paragraph nos.4 to 6 as under:-
“4] I say and submit that total seven persons
have participated in the process and out of
that, six members were having all the documents
as per the terms and conditions of the E-Tender
but the present petitioner has not submitted
the documents i.e. no dues certificate of Sales
Tax Department till – 2017. I say that instead
of submitting no dues certificate of Sales Tax
Department, the petitioner has submitted GST
Certificate which is at page no.22 of the
petition.
5]I say and submit that the petitioner ought
to have remained present on day of opening of
bid and the petitioner ought to have taken
objection at the time of opening of the bid but
the petitioner has not taken any objection.
6]I say and submit that the Committee was
constituted of four members for opening bid and
to scrutinize all the documents and in view of
the documents submitted by the petitioner it
was found that the petitioner is not having no
dues certificate of Sales Tax Department till
2017 and hence the Committee has rightly
rejected E-Tender of the present petitioner.
The copy of the decision dated 20.12.2018 of
Committee is annexed herewith and marked as
WP 236/19
- 3 -
EXHIBIT R-1.”
4]Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
fact after the introduction of GST regime, the
certificate was submitted from the concerned authority.
5]The respondent no.2 in the affidavit states that the
required certificates were issued in other cases by the
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax under the Maharashtra
Value Added Tax Act, 2002, whereas the petitioner failed
to submit such certificate.
5]In view of the reply submitted by the respondent
no.2 and more particularly the fact that the work order
has been already issued, we are not inclined to entertain
the petition. The petition is dismissed. No costs.
ndk/ c253196.doc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should have entertained the writ petition regarding the rejection of the petitioner's tender bid for supplying meals to Bhusawal Prison given that the work order had already bee
Whether the petitioner's failure to submit the required Sales Tax no dues certificate until 2017 justifies the rejection of their tender bid.
DEVYANI BAHUUDDESHIYA MAHALA SANSTHA THROUGH PRESIDENT SUNDARBAI SAKHARAM PATIL
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
ANOTHER
NARESH H. PATIL
V.M. DESHPANDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court