The petitioner challenged the tender opening without notice. The Court held that since the petitioner did not meet eligibility criteria regarding financial turnover and experience, no legal wrong occurred, and the petition was dismissed.
none
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.
11-aswp3156-2022
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3156 OF 2022
Pramod Lunawat …Petitioner
V/s.
The Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, through Municipal Commissioner & Anr. …Respondents
Mr. Saurabh Butala i/by Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandesh Deshpande with Ms. Anagha Sriram for respondent no. 1/NMMC.
Mr. Mohd. Zain Khan with Mr. Faiyaz Khan i/by One Legal for the intervenor.
CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ. &
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2022
P.C.:
1. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation issued e-tender notice for “Advertisement Display Rights on Electric AC Buses”.
2. Paragraph 9 of Schedule ‘A’ of such tender notice contains the eligibility clause, reading as follows: -
i) Company/Firm Registration
1
11-aswp3156-2022
Bidding with Joint Venture/Consortium is not allowed. No Relationship with Corporators See Clause 12 of Detailed Tender Notice.”
3. Paragraph 22 of such tender notice provides as follows: -
“ 22.0 MANNER OF OPEING OF TENDER
The Tender received within the schedule time and date specified in the Tender Notice will be opened as per the specified program in the office as mentioned in the Tender Notice (If Possible). The tenders will be opened in the presence of Tenderers or their authorised representatives who choose to remain present tender will be open online in the presence of Tender Committee.”
4. Grievance of the petitioner is that the tenders received by the tender issuing authority were opened without putting him on notice; and this constitutes an illegality in the process for which interference is warranted.
5. Reply-affidavit has been filed by the tender issuing authority wherein it has been categorically stated in paragraph 5 that the petitioner did not qualify to participate in the tender because of lack of requisite experience.
6. Despite liberty granted by the earlier order dated 14th September 2022, no rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. The allegation of ineligibility for lack of experience is, thus, uncontroverted.
2
11-aswp3156-2022
7. In course of hearing, the only point raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the tender issuing authority ought to have abided by paragraph 22.
8. We are left quite unimpressed. A bidder who is not otherwise eligible cannot be heard to make a grievance. In the present case, the petitioner having failed to qualify in terms of paragraph 9 of the tender notice, it hardly makes any difference even if the tenders were not opened in his presence or his authorized representative. No legal wrong has been committed for which interference could be warranted.
9. The writ petition is misconceived and, accordingly, stands dismissed. No costs.
Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2022.09.21 14:43:49 +0530
(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should intervene when the petitioner was ineligible to bid in the tender process.
Whether non-attendance during tender opening constitutes a legal wrong for which judicial interference is warranted.
Pramod Lunawat
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
Dipankar Datta
Madhav J. Jamdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court