Dismissed

Aksa Constructions Thr. Porprietor v. Chief Executive Officer Zillha Parishad Nashik and Ors.

Bombay HC2 May 2023WP/2796/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed the writ petition challenging a work order issued to a rival bidder. The court held that despite the petitioner submitting the tender earlier, the tender conditions governed the allotment when rates were identical.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of. No costs awarded to the petitioner.

Aksa Constructions Thr. Porprietor Vs Chief Executive Officer Zillha Parishad Nashik and Ors. — Bombay HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1/3

¶2

Rane

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2796 OF 2023

¶5

Aksa Constructions Thr. Proprietor …..Petitioner V/s. Chief Executive Officer, Zillha Parishad, Nashik and Ors. ……Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sanjiv Bapu Dere i/by. Mr. Himanshu S. Gavit, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

Ms. Chaitali Deshmukh, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2.

¶8

Ms. N.M. Mehra, AGP for State.

¶9

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACTING C.J. &

¶10

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶11

DATED : 2ND MAY, 2023 .

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The petitioner challenges the issuance of work order in favour of respondent no.3.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.3 quoted the same rates as quoted by the petitioner. The respondent no.3 submitted tender two hours later than the petitioner submitted the tender bid. According to the learned Counsel, there cannot be two rates so similar that both

¶15

Rane

¶16

2/3

¶17

quote the same rates including paise. The learned counsel submits that, as the petitioner had submitted tender first in point of time, the petitioner ought to have been given preference if the rates are same. The learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivered at Aurangabad Bench in Real Team Systems Pvt. Ltd. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Writ Petition No.9279/2012). According to the learned Court, though the petitioner had submitted tender first, the numerical bid number of the petitioner is later than that of respondent no.3

¶18

We have heard learned Counsel for respondent no.7. The learned Counsel relies upon Clause-7 of the tender document. In the matters of tenders, the matters should be governed by the covenants in the tender. The Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot rewrite the terms of the tender.

¶19

In Writ Petition No. 9279/2012 decided the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad under Judgment and Order dated dated 20^th February, 2014, the Court was considering the Circular which governed the parties and in the said Circular, the Clause was “first come first serve”. The said case was with regard to sale of a plot through advertisement or public tender. The Court observed that the parties would be bound by the said Circular.

¶20

In the present case, Clause-7 of the tender conditions reads thus :

¶21

Rane

¶22

3/3

¶23

“7- nksu fdaok nksuis{kk vf/kd leku U;qure nsdkj vk<GY;kl system Generated BoQ Comparative Chart ¼lax.kdhd`r½ izek.ks U;qure nsdkjkph fufonk U;qure izek.k ekuqu”

¶24

The said provision implies that, if there are two bidders who have quoted the same price, then the same be allotted as per the System Generated BoQ Comparative Chart. The said tender conditions is not assailed by the petitioner. On the contrary, if the petitioner had submitted the tender bid, Clause-7 would bind the petitioner.

¶25

In light of that, no further orders can be passed in favour of the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶26

NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT

¶27

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶28

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶29

Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2023.05.04 16:42:56 +0530

Aksa Constructions Thr. Porprietor v. Chief Executive Officer Zillha Parishad Nashik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aksa Constructions Thr. Porprietor v. Chief Executive Officer Zillha Parishad Nashik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishor K.Joshi Vs the Blossoms Sunderbai Thackersey English School and 5 Ors.

Khilari Rajendra Eknath and 55 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Dr. Dhananjay Patil Vs the Honourable Minister of Industriess and Ors.

Suryakant S/O Gulabrao Bagul Vs the State of Maharashtra , Dept. of Tribal Development and Ors.

Bhila S/O Dharma Bagul Vs the State of Maharashtra , Dept. of Tribal Development and Ors.

Hil Ex-Employees Weelfare Association and Anr. Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization through Union of India and Ors.