The petitioner challenged the acceptance of a bid in a public tender dispute. The court held that a later corrigendum deleted the geo-tagging requirement for tenders still open for submission, as the condition was not applicable. The petition was dismissed without costs.
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.
6-WP-5529-2023
Pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5529 OF 2023
Parasu Giddappa Gadivadar .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
Ms. Pooja Khadeparkar a/w Mr. Ruturaj Pawar for petitioner. Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for respondent nos.1/State. Mr. Siddheshwar Biradar for respondent nos.2 to 4.
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE: APRIL 24, 2023
P.C.:
1. The petitioner assails the acceptance of the bid of respondent no.5.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the essential terms and conditions in the tender is that the tenderer should enclose in envelope no.1, Geo tagging photos. The petitioner under the Right to Information Act had sought information as to the bidders who had submitted the envelope no.1 with Geo tagging photos. The reply was received that respondent no.5 has not submitted the Geo tagging photos. In such an eventuality, bid of the respondent no.5 could not have been accepted. The petitioner was L2. The respondent no.5 was L1. If the bid of the respondent no.5 is rejected, then the petitioner would be L1 and would be entitled for the work to be allotted. The said aspect has not
1
6-WP-5529-2023
been considered. The corrigendum issued is not properly applied.
3. It is not disputed that the tenders were floated by the respondent nos.2 to 4 on or about 7th November, 2022. The last date for filling of the tender was 24th November, 2022. In the interregnum on 14th November, 2022, a corrigendum was issued doing away with the said condition of submission of Geo tagged photos. The corrigendum is applicable to those tenders which were floated and of which last date for submission of bids was open. Though the corrigendum is not happily worded, however, the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that condition of submission of Geo tagging photos would not stand deleted in the tenders which were floated and for which the last date for filling of the bids was still open.
4. In the light of that no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Digitally signed byPRAVIN PRAVIN DASHARATH DASHARATH PANDIT PANDIT Date: 2023.04.25 10:49:34 +0530
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acceptance of the bid of respondent no. 5 who allegedly failed to submit geo-tagging photos.
Parasu Giddappa Gadivadar
State of Maharashtra
S. V. Gangapurwala
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
