Anusuchit Jati Jamati Shikshan Sanstha, through Authorized Representative Mr.Bhushan Govind Ramteke v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Department

Bombay HC14 Oct 2024WP/10132/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged a technical glitch prevented their bids in a State tender from being submitted or considered; one bid was not frozen on the portal. The Court appointed an IIT Bombay computer science expert to determine responsibility for the glitch and directed interim protection pending further orders.

What did the court decide?

Expert inquiry into technical glitch ordered with timelines and fee; further tender decisions subject to further orders.

Anusuchit Jati Jamati Shikshan Sanstha… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

12-wp10132-2024&Ors..doc

¶2

VRJ

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.10131 OF 2024

¶5

VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV

¶6

Digitally signed byVAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Date: 2024.08.20 11:25:37 +0530

¶7

Nalanda Bahuddeshiya Sewabhavi Sanstha, Through Its Authorized Representative, Mr. Bhaskar Kaduba Shinde … Petitioner

¶8

V/s.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Ors. … Respondents

¶10

WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.10132 OF 2024

¶12

Anusuchit Jati Jamati Shikshan Sanstha (Regd.), Through Its Authorized Representative, Mr. Bhushan Govind Ramteke … Petitioner

¶13

V/s.

¶14

The State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Ors. … Respondents

¶15

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10705 OF 2024

¶16

Anusuchit Jati Jamati Shikshan Sanstha (Regd.), Through Its Authorized Representative, Mr. Bhushan Govind Ramteke … Petitioner V/s.

¶17

The State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Ors. … Respondents

¶18

Mr. Nitin Thakkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Sawant, Mr. B. K. Barve and Mr. Sandeep Barve i/by B. K. Barve & Co. for the petitioner in all the

¶19

¶20

12-wp10132-2024&Ors..doc

¶21

writ petitions.

¶22

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader and Ms. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for the State – respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶23

Mr. D. P. Singh for the respondent – NIC i/by Ms. Sapana Kapoor.

¶24

CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ & AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶25

DATED : AUGUST 19, 2024

¶26

P.C.:

¶27

1. The contention in these writ petitions raised on behalf of the petitioners primarily is that on account of technical glitch faced by the petitioners, they were unable to submit their bids without there being any fault on their part. According to the petitioners, for the technical glitch, which prevented the petitioners to submit their bids, the responsibility has to be saddled with the respondents and not with the petitioners.

¶28

2. In Writ Petition No.10705 of 2024, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that on submission of the bid the portal showed a message that bid was submitted successfully, however, the bid of the petitioner is not being considered. To the said submission, learned Additional Government Pleader has replied that in fact the petitioner did not exercise the freezing option, as a result of which the bid submitted by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be considered.

¶29

3. The rival contentions raised by the learned counsel

¶30

¶31

12-wp10132-2024&Ors..doc

¶32

appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Pleader representing the State – authorities can better be appreciated in case the Court seeks a report from some technical expert. Learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, have given their consent for issuing a direction for technical analysis by an expert.

¶33

4. Accordingly, we request the Head of the Department of Computer Science, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, to appoint a faculty member in the department of Computer Science to prepare a report in respect of these three petitions giving his opinion as to whether the petitioners were prevented from participation in the bid process on account of some technical glitch for which is it the petitioners or the State – authorities are responsible. The petitioners as also the appropriate authority in the State Government of the concerned department shall present before the expert to be appointed under this order by the Head of the Department of Computer Science, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, gist of their submissions in brief and supporting documents, if any. The Head of the Department of Computer Science, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, is requested to appoint the expert, as observed above, within three days from the date he receives a copy of this order. The petitioners as also the representatives of the State – respondents shall submit the gist of their submissions before the expert to be appointed under this order within next seven days.

¶34

5. The expert, thereafter, shall conduct the necessary

¶35

¶36

12-wp10132-2024&Ors..doc

¶37

inquiry, and if needed he shall take all steps which may be necessary for arriving at a correct conclusion as to whether for technical glitch, if any, responsibility is to be saddled with the petitioners or with the State – respondents. The said inquiry shall be conducted within fifteen days from the receipt of the gist of submissions by the respective parties by the expert.

¶38

6. We also direct that the petitioner of each of these three writ petitions shall pay the expert a fee of Rs.75,000/-, each, for conducting the inquiry and submitting the report before this Court. The report to be prepared on inquiry by the expert under this order shall be placed before this Court through the Registrar General. The Registrar General will communicate this order to the Head of the Department of Computer Science, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, and will also co-ordinate and extend all his cooperation to all concerned to ensure inquiry under this order is conducted smoothly.

¶39

7. Mr. Nitin Thakkar, learned Senior Advocate, has submitted that apart from either the petitioners or the respondents being responsible for non-submission of the bid by the petitioners, there may be a third possibility where fault may not be attributable either to the petitioners or to the State – authorities, but it may occur on account of some involuntary act at the end of the parties.

¶40

8. The expert in its report shall throw light on this aspect of the matter as well. We further direct that all the parties shall extend fullest cooperation to the expert appointed under this

¶41

¶42

12-wp10132-2024&Ors..doc

¶43

order.

¶44

9. In the meantime, we also provide that any further decision, which may be taken by the State – authorities in respect of the subject tender, shall be subject to further orders, which may be passed on these petitions.

¶45

10. Stand over to 20 September 2024 . To be placed High on Board .

¶46

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶47

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶48

Anusuchit Jati Jamati Shikshan Sanstha, through Authorized Representative Mr.Bhushan Govind Ramteke v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anusuchit Jati Jamati Shikshan Sanstha, through Authorized Representative Mr.Bhushan Govind Ramteke v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Department

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mayura Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. vs Union of India through Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change

Valmiki Seva Mandal, Public Charitable Trust, through Its Managing Trustee vs Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Firoz Khurshed Jamshedji vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Onkar Sanghatit Mahila Bachat Gat through Its President Shobha Vasant Khirwala vs the Commissioner, Integrated Child Development Scheme

Kilash Maruti Raut Nee Patil vs the Secretary Govt. of India Under Ministry of Labour and Employment and Ors.

Anandrao Bhagwan Nikam vs the Secretary, Sadguru Jangali Maharaj Edu. Society and Ors.