Dismissed

Sanfield (India) Limited v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (Msrdc) and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Nov 2019WP/3403/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a dispute regarding eligibility for a contract, the High Court held that the Writ Petition involved disputed questions of fact concerning technical specifications. Consequently, the writ jurisdiction was not appropriate, and the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed solely on the ground that the writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate remedy for disputed questions of fact.

Sanfield (India) Limited Vs Maharashtra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

12. os wpl 2686-19.doc

¶2

R.M. AMBERKAR
(Private Secretary)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

O.O.C.J.

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2686 OF 2019

Sanfield (India) Ltd

.. Petitioner

Versus

Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) & Ors.

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Mr. Amit Sale a/w Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni for the Petitioner

¶12

Mr. L.T. Satelkar, AGP for the State

¶13

Mr. Prashant Chvan i/by Reshmarani J. Nathani for Respondent No. 1

¶14

Mr. Shardul Singh a/w Amisha Nair i/by Robin George for Respondent No. 3

¶15

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &

¶16

R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.

¶17

DATE : NOVEMBER 22, 2019.

¶18

P.C.:

¶19

1. Heard both sides. Perused the petition and annexures

¶20

thereto, so also the afÏdavit in reply. We are of the opinion

¶21

that the Writ Petition revolves around a disputed question of fact. The MSRDC, the first respondent in its afÏdavit-in-reply

¶22

to the petition has in paragraph 9, 10 and 11 urged as under:-

¶23

"9. I say that in respect of V Groove cutting and crack filling the minimum quantity requirements was 40300 RMT in single project on any Expressway, NH or SH road. I say that the Petitioner had

¶24

1 of 4

¶25

12. os wpl 2686-19.doc

¶26

produced a certificate issued by Executive Engineer (PR) NDMC Karol Bagh Zone, Delhi, denoting experience of 19064.8 kgs. of total epoxy grouting work. I say that the said certificate further stated that the average consumption of epoxy grouting is between 300 to 400 grams per RM of crack. It is further stated that therefore V Groove cutting and sealing of cracks was done for not less than 55000 RM. I say that the technical evaluation committee came to the conclusion that there is no clarity in respect of the quantity of work carried out and therefore, the experience of V Groove cutting and crack filling of minimum quantity of 40300 RMT in single project cannot be considered.

¶27

I say that as far as owning of ground penetrating radar based scanning (200 mm depth with 3d Image report) machine to provide the scanner exclusively for the project duration is concerned the Petitioner was not having the said machine at the time of submission of bid. Hence, the Petitioners were disqualified.

¶28

I say that the said radar based scanning machine is used for assessing the cover of concrete, mapping of rebar and estimation of size / diameter of rebars. I say that the Metallic Scanner Locater is light in weight and easy to operate. I say that the metallic scanner not only locates the cover depth of rebar / metal, but also locates the metal / rebar up to a depth of 300 mm or so. I say that the metallic locater is placed over the concrete surface and moved slowly horizontally up to required length for horizontal bars (moved down slowly top to bottom) and vertically down bottom for vertical bars and the result gets recoded in its display in the form of graph having measurements."

¶29

2. The Writ Petitioner says otherwise. The petitioner says

¶30

that it is eligible and qualified to carry out the contract

¶31

2 of 4

¶32

12. os wpl 2686-19.doc

¶33

works. The same are of maintenance and repairs to a very busy flyover on the Mumbai-Nashik-Agra National Highway. The volume of trafÏc particularly of fully loaded heavy vehicles, the goods and passenger vehicle movement throughout the day and night required the best and technically most suited contractor. Apart from the fact that this is a technical matter, we are of the view that there is a disputed question of fact. If the petitioner asserts that the methodology and the technic employed by it for the project work of the New Delhi Municipal Corporation would hold good for subject work as well, then, all the technical specifications and other requirements of the tendering authority would have to be either questioned or accepted but

¶34

the opinion and view of the Tendering Public Authority about petitioner's technical ability would have to be put in issue. The petitioner can succeed only when it establishes total parity with the technology which has been chosen and hitherto provided by the first respondent to other public bodies like NDMC. Else, the requirements of two distinct - public bodies cannot be presumed by us to be on par with each other. We are no experts.

¶35

3 of 4

¶36

12. os wpl 2686-19.doc

¶37

3. To our mind the whole exercise would require the parties to tender oral and documentary evidence by summoning the experts. In the light of the disputed questions of fact, we are of the view that the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the remedy available to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed solely on this ground. No costs.

¶38

[ R.I. CHAGLA, J. ] [ S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J ]

¶39

Digitally signed Ravindra by Ravindra M.Amberkar M. Date: Amberkar 2019.11.2712:58:19 +0530

¶40

4 of 4

Sanfield (India) Limited v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (Msrdc) and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanfield (India) Limited v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (Msrdc) and 2 Ors.

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

Prashant Annanji Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Mahendra Narayan Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Reshma Mahadeo Marathe and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Jagadale Santosh Raghunath Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Shri. Vijay Narayan Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra, School Education Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Devendra R. Sanas Vs State of Maharashtra, School Education Dept. and Ors.