Disposed

Prakash Mangu Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC8 Mar 2023WP/2719/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged qualification errors in a tender evaluation affecting his ability to receive a work order. The High Court expressed reluctance to interfere post-work order issuance but disposed of the petition while directing the respondent to decide a specific representation within four weeks, allowing the petitioner to seek compensation separately.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; direction given to decide petitioner's representation within four weeks; right to claim compensation preserved.

Prakash Mangu Pawar Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

931 sr.no..odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2719 OF 2023

¶5

PRAKASH MANGU PAWAR

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S. P. Kausalye
AGP for Respondents: Mr. S.B. Yawalkar.

¶9

 CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE
& S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.

¶10

 DATE : 8th MARCH, 2023

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

The claim of the petitioner is that, in technical bid, the
petitioner was shown to be qualified. However, subsequent thereto,
while evaluating the price bids, the petitioner was shown to be not
qualified so as to accommodate the respondent/successful bidder.

¶13

2.In response to the Court’s query, the counsel for petitioner
informs that though work order is issued, the work has not commenced.
Be that as it may, considering the scope, to extent of which we can cause
interference under Article 226 in tender matters, particularly, when the
work order is already issued, we are not intending to cause any
interference.

¶14

931 sr.no..odt

¶15

3.Petition is accordingly disposed of. However, we direct that
the representation of the petitioner dated September 22, 2022, be
decided by the respondent No.3 within a period of four weeks from
today. It is further clarified that it shall be open for the petitioner to
initiate proceeding for compensation against the respondent, to which he
is entitled, independent of the disposal of the petition.

¶16

[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR] [NITIN W. SAMBRE] JUDGE JUDGE

¶17

grt/-

Prakash Mangu Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Mangu Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dnyandeo Yashwant Palve Vs the Collector Ahmednagar and Others

M/S N. K. Gade through Partner Yogesh Madhukar Gade Vs the Collector Ahmednagar and Others

Sahebchand Uttamchand Jain and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Aref Baig Munsi Baig Mirza and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Prakash Mangu Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Ajit Kachru Raut and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others