Disposed

M/S. Maa Narmada Construction, Nagpur through Partner Shri. Rudrangad Barkusing Chauhan v. State of Maha. Thr. Minister of Soil and Water Conservation, Mumbai through Secretary and Others

Bombay HC28 Jan 2021WP/543/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of technical bid due to lack of similar work experience. Court observes a certified completed project exists but allows tender authorities two days to verify eligibility to avoid disrupting the tender process.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to give petitioner opportunity to explain technical bid status within two working days; writ petition disposed.

M/S. Maa Narmada Construction, Nagpur through… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 / 3 16-WP 543.2021

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 543 OF 2021

¶4

M/s Maa Narmada Construction -- Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra and others --Respondents

¶5

Mr. A. A. Choube and Mr.A.A.Naik Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D. P. Thakare, Addl. G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4

¶6

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATED : 28 JANUARY 2021

¶7

P. C. :

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Additional Government Pleader.

¶9

As regard the order that we proposed to pass notice to Respondent Nos.5 to 8 – other tenderers is not necessary.

¶10

The Petitioner has submitted his bid pursuant to an E- Tender notice No.1 of 2020-21, issued by the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 for construction of K. T. Weir at Sonoli 1 and 2, Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur. The Petitioner’s technical bid has been rejected and the Petitioner is before us. Financial bids are yet to be opened.

¶11

KOLHE

¶12

2 / 3 16-WP 543.2021

¶13

In the tender document, a condition is stipulated at Clause 6. i. b. as below :-

¶14

“6. i. b. The contractor must have successfully completed at least one work of similar nature of and complexity i.e. water retaining structure like K. T. Weir etc. (Note :- If any contractor / bidder has subleted the work from other contractor, then the permission of the concerned Executive Engineer in writing is compulsory) during last five year. ”

¶15

The Petitioner’s technical bid was rejected by updating the status on 20 January 2021 “similar work not found”. The Petitioner’s representation that he has an experience of similar work, as certified by the Respondent Authorities themselves has not been considered.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to the document annexed by the Petitioner to the tender of bid dated 24 December 2020 titled – “Statement showing Work Done/in hand under District Water Conservation Officer, Soil and Water Conservation Division, Nagpur By MS Maa Narmada Construction, At. Po. Belona, Tah. Narkhed, Dist.Nagpur.” In this document the name of work is given as – Construction of Flood Protection work for Junona (Gharad), K. T. Weir–1 at Thugaon Nipani, Tah. Narkhed, Dist.Nagpur. Date of commencement and Agreement No. B1/148/DL/18-19 Dt.05/03/2019. Amount of

¶17

KOLHE

¶18

3 / 3 16-WP 543.2021

¶19

work as – Rs.4671147/-. Total expenditure as – 44.44 and the Remark as – “Work in Completed”. Though the phrase used is “in”, the assertion of the Petitioner that it is a typographical error is plausible considering the manner in which this remark is phrased. This assertion made in the Petition is supported by other documents that the work was completed. Prima facie there is no reason why such certificate should not be considered as similar experience especially when certified by the Governmental Authorities.

¶20

Considering the fact that the tender process is under way, we direct that the Respondent will give an opportunity to the Petitioner to explain the said statement dated 24 December 2020 and the supporting documents to demonstrate that the work was completed and the Petitioner is not technically disqualified. The said decision be taken within a period of two working days, so as not to disrupt the schedule of tender process.

¶21

The learned Additional Government Pleader states that Authorities will be informed without waiting for copy of the order.

¶22

Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶23

KOLHE

M/S. Maa Narmada Construction, Nagpur through Partner Shri. Rudrangad Barkusing Chauhan v. State of Maha. Thr. Minister of Soil and Water Conservation, Mumbai through Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Maa Narmada Construction, Nagpur through Partner Shri. Rudrangad Barkusing Chauhan v. State of Maha. Thr. Minister of Soil and Water Conservation, Mumbai through Secretary 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

Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. Mumbai Vs Bhatia Coal Washeries Ltd. Indore

Ms. Pradnya Dnyaneshwar Patil Vs the District Superintending Agriculture Officer, Wardha and Others

Sublime Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur through Director Shri Aavesh S/O Navalkishor Zunzunwala Vs State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Mumbai

M/S. Ashoka Safe Deposit Vaulet Company, Vs Adminstrator, Samta Shahakar and 6 Ors.

Waman S/O Sudam Meshram Vs the Accountant General, Nagpur through Senior Accounts Officer and Others

Ku. Sankuli D/O Santish Parate Vs Committee for Verification of Tribe Certificate Amravati through Member Secretary