The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL challenging tender exclusion procedures where a coordinate bench had already dismissed a similar writ petition by the excluded bidder. The court held the issue was not res integra and ordered forfeiture of security.
PIL rejected; security amount forfeited to Children Aid Society.
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.
Diksha Rane
Digitally signed by DIKSHA DIKSHA DINESH DINESH RANE RANE Date: 2021.12.13 20:56:34 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.64 OF 2021
SHALIGRAM G. MISHRA .. PETITIONER VS. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION AND ORS. .. RESPONDENTS ------------
Mr. Shaligram Mishra, petitioner in person. Mr. Naushad Engineer a/w. Mr. Anagh Pradhan and Mr. Anand Iyer i/b. Divya Shah Associates for respondent nos.1, 3 to 9. Mr. Ashutogsh R. Gole for respondent no.10.
CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2021
P.C. :
1
decision taken by the respondent no. 2 (sic, respondent no.1) may be called for and quashed and set aside, the respondents “3 to 4” may be directed to review the tendering procedures and to qualify ASGLS or to re-invite the tender after due modifications, as well as for directions on the respondent no.1 to formulate standard and model SOP(s) for determination of Bid Evaluation Criteria.
2
brought to our notice by him that ASGLS upon being disqualified to participate in the tender process had challenged such disqualification by instituting Writ Petition (L) No. 10863 of 2021 before this Court; and that a coordinate Bench, by a reasoned judgment and order dated May 20, 2021, spurned the challenge and dismissed such petition holding that the criteria set forth in the notice inviting tender for each bidder to fulfill for enabling participation in the process could not be re-written by the Court. ASGLS having failed to meet the laid down criteria, was rightly disqualified. It is also submitted by Mr. Engineer that such judgment and order, to the best of knowledge and belief of the respondent no.1, has not been carried further in appeal and, therefore, must be deemed to have attained finality.
3
corrupt and that the terms and conditions of tenders are tailor made to suit a chosen few bidders who only can participate and not the others. In such way, public money is being siphoned off by such officers. Such siphoning off needs to be arrested and the petitioner being left with no remedy took recourse to this PIL and seeks the intervention of this Court to set things right. 6. We have heard the petitioner as well as Mr. Engineer. There can be no doubt that at least on this PIL, it is not necessary for us to examine the petitioner’s allegation of corrupt public officials engaging in siphoning off public money.
4
finality, this PIL is thoroughly misconceived and deserves to be rejected. It is ordered accordingly. 8. The security amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) deposited by the petitioner stands forfeited. Registry shall take steps to transmit the said amount in favour of Children Aid Soc Donation, Bank Account No.02370100005612, UCO Bank, Matunga Mumbai Branch (IFSC Code: UCBA0000237).
(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Public Interest Litigation challenging tender exclusion can be entertained when a coordinate bench has already dismissed a writ petition by the excluded bidder.
Whether the High Court can re-write terms of the notice inviting tenders and re-open a closed matter on bid evaluation criteria.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition (L) No. 10863 of 2021Referred¶17
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SHALIGRAM G. MISHRA
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
M/s. Polydrill Engg. Pvt. Ltd.
DIPANKAR DATTA
M. S. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
