Dismissed

Mahila Arthik Vikas Bachat Gut, through Its President, Smt. Karuna W/O Krishnarao Chimankar v. the State of Maharashtra,through Its Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Mumbai and

Bombay HC16 Jan 2020WP/7004/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the arbitrariness of a tender condition requiring bidders to maintain an average bank balance of Rs. 25,000 for the preceding year. The court dismissed the challenge, holding that imposing such conditions is within the employer's prerogative unless it is absolutely arbitrary or irrational.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Mahila Arthik Vikas Bachat Gut, through Its… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

WP7004.19

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.7004/2019

¶5

Mahila Arthik Vikas Bachat Gut through its President Smt. Karuna w/o Krishnarao Chimankar.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Women and Child Development Department and
anr.

¶6

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders
or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶7

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶8

Shri Amol Mardikar, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. N.Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

¶9

CORAM: R.K.DESHPANDE and
 A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶10

DATE: 16.01.2020

¶11

The challenge in this petition is to the tender
notice in respect of condition no.8 which requires the
bidder to have average balance amount of Rs.Twenty Five
thousand in the account in the preceding year. The
contention is that the said condition is arbitrary particularly
when the petitioner has been performing the same job
since 2008 and there were no complaints in respect of the
service provided by the petitioner. It is an offer made by
the petitioner that an amount of Rs.Twenty Five thousand
can be deposited in the account to show the bonafides.

¶12

It is not possible for us to direct the
respondents to consider the offer of the petitioner to
deposit an amount of Rs.Twenty Five thousand in the
account for the reason that same would not satisfy the
condition which relates to the maintenance of average
balance amount of Rs.Twenty five thousand in the account
during the last preceding year. The object is to judge the

¶13

WP7004.19

¶14

2/2

¶15

capacity of the persons. The imposition of the condition in
tender is prerogative of the employer and unless the
condition is shown to be absolutely arbitrary or irrational,
no interference can be made under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

¶16

We do not find anything arbitrary in imposition
of such condition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed
with no orders as to costs.

¶17

 JUDGE JUDGE

¶18

Andurkar..

Mahila Arthik Vikas Bachat Gut, through Its President, Smt. Karuna W/O Krishnarao Chimankar v. the State of Maharashtra,through Its Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Mumbai and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahila Arthik Vikas Bachat Gut, through Its President, Smt. Karuna W/O Krishnarao Chimankar v. the State of Maharashtra,through Its Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Mumbai and

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

Mohan S/O Jijeba Gore Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mumbai

Saquib Nadeem S/O Abdul Naim Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and Others

Mr. Sanjay S/O Tikadas Ninawe Vs Suresh Wankhede, Joint Commissioner and Vice Chairman, S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee

Dr. Umakant S/O Padmakar Ramteke Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Public Health Department, Mumbai and Others

Vidharbha Processing and Marketing Cooperative Society, through Manager, Shri Babarao Daryaji Lothe Vs the Collector, Washim

Hbt Security Force, Nagpur through Prop. Mohammad Ruhul Amin Qureshi Vs State of Maharashtra, Minorities Development Department, Mumbai through Secretary and Others