Disposed

M/S. Rishi Construction v. Municipal Corporation for the City of Kalyan Dombivali Thru Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jul 2023WP/6730/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Municipality's decision to bar participation in a tender due to an alleged low bid without a hearing. The Court held that the impugned order was interim and directed the Municipality to decide the pending representation within three weeks after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 27 April 2023 was treated as interim; respondent directed to decide pending representation within three weeks.

M/S. Rishi Construction Vs Municipal… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

WP 6730.23.doc

¶2

¶3

JPP

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 6730 OF 2023 with

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6731 OF 2023 with WRIT PETITION NO. 6732 OF 2023 with WRIT PETITION NO. 6733 OF 2023

¶7

M/s. Rishi Construction

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

V/s.

¶10

Municipal Corporation for the City of Kalyan Dombivali Through Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar for the Petitioner Mr. A.S. Rao for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. P.P. Kakade, Govt. Pleader with Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for Respondent No.3

¶13

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR , ACJ & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

¶14

DATE : 11 JULY 2023

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶17

WP 6730.23.doc

¶18

¶19

The Petitioner has challenged the action of the Respondent – Municipal Corporation in not granting the tender to the Petitioner. The tender was called for the civil work. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out that as far as the tender is concerned, the challenge has become infructuous as the Respondent – Corporation has resorted to re-tender.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that therefore the Petitioner is restricted to the order/observations of the City Engineer of the Municipal Corporation in the impugned communication dated 27 April 2023. In the impugned communication the Municipal Corporation has stated that the Petitioner being L-1 bidder submitted an extremely low bid and thereafter, did not submit an additional performance security deposit. The other bid could not match the Petitioner’s bid and because of the delay that ensued during the rainy season, the work of drainage could not be carried out and with this observation the Municipal Corporation has directed that the Petitioner would be barred from participating in the tender issued by the Municipal Corporation for next one year.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that this order is passed without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner.

¶22

3 8. WP 6730.23.doc

¶23

The order is passed on 27 April 2023 and the substantial period has already been undergone. The Petitioner has made a representation to the Municipal Corporation on 2 May 2023 which is not yet decided in respect of this order.

¶24

Considering these facts, the Municipal Corporation would take a decision on the petitioner’s representation within a period of three weeks after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to put forth his case. The order dated 27 April 2023 shall be considered as an interim order and the observations therein be considered as prima facie and final order will be passed by the Municipal Corporation after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner as above.

¶25

7. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶26

ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

Digitally signed JYOTI by JYOTI PRAKASH PRAKASH PAWAR PAWAR Date: 2023.07.17 18:15:56 +0530

M/S. Rishi Construction v. Municipal Corporation for the City of Kalyan Dombivali Thru Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Rishi Construction v. Municipal Corporation for the City of Kalyan Dombivali Thru Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

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

TV9 Media Maharashtra Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd.

TV9 Media Maharashtra Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd.

Aafcon Developers Vs Bhupatrai K. Mehta

Pramod Premchand Shah and 5 Others Vs Tata Sons Ltd. and 29 Others

Kiran Bajrang Kate Vs the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kiran Bajrang Kate Vs the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.