Partly allowed

Bharatratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Sevabhavi Sanstha Harbal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Dec 2020WP/6217/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the selection of Respondent No. 5 as the implementing agency for a One Stop Crises Centre due to alleged non-compliance with tender criteria. The Court held that 10 marks were wrongly allotted to Respondent No. 5, which would have made the petitioner the top candidate. The selection order was quashed, and a fresh decision was directed. (2020)

What did the court decide?

The order selecting Respondent No. 5 is quashed. Authorities directed to take a fresh decision within three weeks after considering all eligibility objections.

Bharatratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Sevabhavi… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1 935-wp 6217-2020.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6217 OF 2020

¶4

Bharatratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Sevabhavi Sanstha, Harbal, Through its President Shri Madhav Sambhajirao Dompale

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. D. S. Bagul, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. P. S. Patil, Addl. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶11

Mr. S. R. Bagal, Advocate h/f Mr. Bharat N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 5.

¶12

Mr. Mahesh V. Ghatge, Advocate for intervener.

¶13

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 03^rd DECEMBER, 2020.

¶15

PER COURT :-

¶16

. The petitioner is assailing the selection of respondent No. 5 as an implementing agency for One Stop Crises Centre, Nanded.

¶17

Pursuant to the tender notice issued by the Collector dated 02.01.2020 and 03.01.2020 the petitioner, respondent No. 5 and other three tenderers filled in the tender. The respondent No. 5 is selected. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition.

¶18

1 of 10

¶19

2 935-wp 6217-2020.odt

¶20

Mr. Bagul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 5 does not qualify the criteria laid down under the tender for appointment as an implementing agency for One Stop Crises Centre. Amongst other submissions, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, respondent No. 5 is not qualified and has no experience as provided under the scheme and the tender document. According to the learned counsel, the respondent No. 5 does not possess the sound financial condition. One of the condition for a qualified tenderer was that the balance sheet of the institution should be more than Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only). The respondent No. 5’s balance sheet in none of the years is Rs. 20,00,000/(Rupees Twenty Lakh only) or more, still 10 marks are allotted to the respondent No. 5 on the ground that the balance sheet of the respondent No. 5 is more than Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only). The respondent No. 5 also does not possess the necessary experience in the women development. The respondent No. 5 is running a Nursing College and a hostel for Nursing College. The same is not a work for women development.

¶21

Mr. Bagal, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 does not dispute that in none of the years of which the balance sheets were submitted, the balance sheet of the respondent No. 5 was never more

¶22

2 of 10

¶23

935-wp 6217-2020.odt

¶24

than Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only). The prima dona contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 5 is that the marks allotted by the scrutiny committee is not sole criteria for awarding the work. The spot inspection has been done by the committee. Thereafter, the matter is referred to the management committee. Power point presentation was considered. The petitioner was ineligible and not qualified to apply. The petitioner is not engaged in any women development work. The school and the computer centre which the petitioner has allegedly represented of being run by it, is run by another institution. The petitioner does not have an iota of experience in women development, nor is running any residential centre for women. The learned counsel further submits that false sites are shown at the time of inspection by the petitioner. As the petitioner itself is not eligible, it could not have assailed the selection of respondent No. 5. The basic criteria is not fulfilled by the petitioner. The management committee has considered all the aspects and has selected respondent No. 5.

¶25

The learned Addl. G. P. accepts that 10 marks are allotted to the respondent No. 5 on the ground that the balance sheet of the petitioner is of more than Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only). The learned Addl. G. P. submits that further aspects are also considered by

¶26

3 of 10

¶27

4 935-wp 6217-2020.odt

¶28

the management committee. The inspection report is considered. The experience of respondent No. 5 is considered and rightly the selection of respondent No. 5 is made.

¶29

Mr. Ghatge, learned counsel appears for interveners viz. the employees for respondent No. 5 after the selection of respondent No. 5.

¶30

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties.

¶31

In matters of contract the Court would be slow to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court would be more concerned with due adherence to the decision making process.

¶32

The respondent No. 4, the instrumentality of the State is expected to act fairly and transparently. The respondent No. 4 has filed an affidavit thereby clarifying the decision making process adopted by it. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the affidavit have averred as under :

¶33

“10. I say and submit that, the scrutiny committee found that, the petitioner has not submitted the annual report of the year 2018-2019, which is specifically referred in clause 13 of the proforma. The scrutiny committee also found that, the petitioner institute has not annexed the balance sheet as required by clause 17 of the proforma. The balance sheet was necessary for determining the marks with respect to Rs. 20,00,000/- as

¶34

5 935-wp 6217-2020.odt

¶35

specified in table No. 10 of the mark sheet. The petitioner himself has not given the required document and therefore, he was not assigned the marks for that category.

¶36

I say and submit that, the scrutiny committee also found that, the petitioner institute does not have experience of running residential institute for women. Scrutiny committee found that, the respondent No. 5 has experience of running residential girls Hostel and they have experience of 9 years which is Government authorized Girls Residential Hostels. The proposal of the respondent No. 5 shows that, it has experience of women empowerment and also experience of dealing with women residential institute.

¶37

I say and submit that, the said report along with mark sheet submitted to the respondent No. 4 was further placed before the District Managing Committee after going through the report, it was directed to have power point presentation from the institute as suggested by the scrutiny committee. The scrutiny committee has seen power point presentation and also had made spot verification.

¶38

I say and submit that, in the spot verification the committee has recorded that, the petitioner institute has Jijau English School, Sai Culture Centre, Gymnyashiyum/Gym and also found helping to needy women by giving them of food grains. In the spot inspection of respondent No. 5, it is recorded that, the respondent No. 5 is running Muktai Nursing school and Muktai Nursing school, hostel which has all facilities and also found that, the respondent No. 5 is running Balak Ashram which have all the facilities. The spot inspection was done of other two institutes i.e. Gram Vikas and Priyadarshani. The copy of report

¶39

5 of 10

¶40

6 935-wp 6217-2020.odt

¶41

forwarded to the Managing Committee is annexed herewith and marked as EXHIBIT R-2.

¶42

I say and submit that, the Managing Committee verified each and every aspect of the matter and has taken decision to select to respondent No. 5 taking into consideration experience of running residential hostel of girls previous approved by the Government. The committee in its meeting dated 5.8.2020, after has taken decision and selected respondent No. 5 as it has scored highest marks and also it was found that, it is capable and experience to run one stop centre as required under the scheme. The copy of the minutes dated 5.8.2020 of the District Managing Committee is annexed herewith and marked as EXHIBIT R-3.”

¶43

It is manifest that the committee in its meeting dated 05.08.2020 has taken decision and selected respondent No. 5 as it has got highest marks and also it was found that it is capable and has experience to run One Stop Crises Centre as required under the scheme. The marks allotted by the scrutiny committee to the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 are placed on record by all the parties. The same is reproduced as under :

¶44

6 of 10

¶45

ONE STOP CRISES CENTER ¼l a dVxzLr efgykalkBh fuokjk dsanz½ ;k ;kstusarxZr izkIr izLrkokaps xq.kkuqdze fuf”pr dj.;kdjhr xq.kif=dk

¶46

v-dz- Ukko o iRrk	bPNwd laLFkk R;kp ftYg;krhy vlY;kl 2 xq.k o brj ftYg;krhy vlY;kl 1 xq.k	LakLFksus ekxhy 3 o’kkZr /kekZnk; vk;qDrkadMs vgoky lknj dsyk vlY;kl 3 xq.k] 2 o’kkZpk vgoky lknj dsyk vlY;kl 2 xq.k] 1 o’kkZpk vgoky lknj dsyk vlY;kl 1 xq.k	LakLFkk tj Lok/kkj ;kstuk jkcfor ulsy rj 5 xq.k] Lok/kkj ;kstuk jkcfor vlsy rj 10 xq.k ¼“kklu ekU;rk vko”;d½	LkaLFkk tj mTToyk ;kstuk jkcfor ulsy rj 5 xq.k] mTToyk ;kstuk jkcfor vlsy rj 10 xq.k ¼“kklu ekU;rk vko”;d½	LakLFksl efgyk fodkl {ks=kr fdeku 10 o’kkZpk vuqHko ¼“kklukph ekU;rk vko”;d½ vlY;kl 10 xq.k] 5 o’kkZpk vuqHko vlY;kl 5 xq.k] 2 o’kkZpk vlY;kl 2 xq.k½	LakLFksus efgykaP;k iquoZlukoj [kpZ dsyk vlY;kl 6 xq.k	LkaLFksph okf’kZd myk<ky fdeku 50 y{k vlY;kl 6 xq.k] 30 y{k vlY;kl 3 xq.k] R;kis{kk deh vlY;kl 0 xq.k	LakLFkspk okf’kZd rkGscan fdeku 20 y{k vlY;kl 7 xq.k] o 20 y{kkais{kk tkLr vlY;kl 10 xq.k o 20 y{kkais{kk deh vlY;kl 0 xq.k	LakLFksP;k ukos fdeku 15 y{k eqnr Bso fdeku 3 o’kkZdjhrk vlY;kl 3 xq.k] izfr o’kkZdfjrk 1 xq.k	LakLFksdMs furh vk;ksx izek.ki= vlY;kl 5 xq.k] ulY;kl 0 xq.k	LakLFksus efgyk fodkl {ks=kr pkaxys dk;Z dsY;kpsISO izek.ki= vlY;kl 5 xq.k o ulY;kl 0 xq.k	,dq.k xq.k PPT lknjhdj	.k LFkG ikg.kh vgoky	“ksjk
1 2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14 15	16	17
1 xzkefodkl lk-vk-lk- ;qod lsokHkkoh laLFkk ¼olaruxj] ukansM½ rk- [kjcMk] rk- iq.kkZ] ft- ukansM	1	0	5	5	0	6	6	10	2	0	0	35 &	&	vik=
2 TkudY;k.k cgqmn~nsf”k; izfr’Bk.k] fiaiGdqBk] rk- eq[ksM] ft- ukansM	2	3	5	5	9	6	6	10	2	5	5	58 &	&	izFke
3 HkkjrjRu MkW- ckcklkgsc vkacsMdj lsokHkkoh laLFkk gjcG] rk- yksgk] ft- ukansM	2	3	5	5	10	6	6	0	3	5	5	50 &	&	f}rh;
4 fiz;n”kZuh ekxkloxhZ; fodkl efgyk eaMG dksYgk] iks- eas<dk] rk- eqn[ksM] ft- ukansM	2	1	5	5	0	6	6	10	2	5	5	47 &	&	vik=
5 Eknj rsjslk ekxkloxhZ; efgyk fodkl eaMG] ekS- rh:dk] rk- tGdksV] ft- ykrwj ¼egk-½	1	0	10	10	10	6	6	10	3	0	0	56 &	&	vik=

¶47

8 935-wp 6217-2020.odt

¶48

It appears that as per the scrutiny committee assessment, the petitioner and respondent No. 5 were the only two eligible candidates. The respondent No. 5 was allotted 58 marks and the petitioner was allotted 50 marks.

¶49

We asked learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 as to whether respondent No. 5 had submitted balance sheet of over Rs. 20,00,000/(Rupees Twenty Lakh only) or above of any one financial year.

¶50

Mr. Bagal, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 fairly admitted that none of the balance sheet submitted by the respondent No. 5 the balance sheet is of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) or above. In view of that, 10 marks allotted to the respondent No. 5 for submitting balance sheet of above Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) is incorrect. The same could not have been allotted. In that case the respondent No. 5 would be left with 48 marks and the petitioner 50 marks.

¶51

It appears that the respondent No. 5 did not raise objection challenging the eligibility of the petitioner during selection process. It is for the authorities to consider the basic eligibility of the tenderers. The allotment of marks was also one of the criteria considered by the authorities while selecting respondent No. 5 as is clear from the

¶52

8 of 10

¶53

9 935-wp 6217-2020.odt

¶54

affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, more particularly, paragraph no. 14 of the said affidavit.

¶55

The authorities did not find the petitioner to be ineligible by the scrutiny committee while allotting the marks. In the affidavit filed it is nowhere stated that the petitioner was ineligible to apply. The contention of respondent No. 5 that the documents filed by the petitioner are false and that the site shown by the petitioner of running the institution is not in existence or that the petitioner is not running the said institution were required to be considered by the authorities at the time of decision. On the contrary, the record shows that the respondent authorities considered the petitioner to be eligible and qualified to participate in the tender process. The authorities will have to consider the eligibility of the petitioner, so also the respondent No. 5 and will have to assess the better institution to run One Stop Crises Centre.

¶56

In the light of the aforesaid facts ex facie, the 10 marks allotted to the respondent No. 5 in respect of balance sheet of over Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) is incorrect and erroneous and if the said marks are removed, then the petitioner would get the more marks than the respondent No. 5 and further the respondent No. 5 has also raised an objection to the eligibility of the present petitioner

¶57

9 of 10

¶58

10 935-wp 6217-2020.odt

¶59

in the present petition which aspect is required to be considered by the authority itself, we pass the following order.

¶60

The impugned order selecting the respondent No. 5 is quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities shall take fresh decision with regard to the allotment of One Stop Crises Centre by considering the objections raised by the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5. The decision shall be taken within a period of three (03) weeks after hearing the petitioner and the respondent No. 5. For a period of three (03) weeks the present arrangement may continue. After the lapse of three (03) weeks the further process in tune with the decision that would be taken by the authority regarding selection of an implementing agency for One Stop Crises Centre pursuant to the present order be undertaken.

¶61

18. Writ petition accordingly is disposed of. No costs.

¶62

( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶63

P.S.B.

¶64

10 of 10

Bharatratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Sevabhavi Sanstha Harbal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharatratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Sevabhavi Sanstha Harbal 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

Ajay Vijayrao Gavane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sanjay Kalu Patkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Kalu Patkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Premala Balaji Nelewar and Others Vs Bharatratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Sevabhavi Sanstha Harbal and Others

Rajiv Ghanshyam Sanap and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Avinash Balasaheb Londhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another