Mahalaxmi Automotives Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra Thr Its Prin. Secretary, Rural Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Sept 2024WP/13109/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bidder challenged a Zilla Parishad tender process where a disqualified bidder was later allowed to cure defects and qualify after re-evaluation, and the tender was allotted to it. The Court prima facie found the process unfair and stayed the impugned work order till the next date.

What did the court decide?

Interim direction: impugned work order not to be given effect to until next date; leave to amend petition granted; notice issued.

Mahalaxmi Automotives Pvt. Ltd. vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

(2)-WP-13109-24.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL

¶4

Digitally signed by BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Date: 2024.10.14 18:19:55 +0530

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.13109 OF 2024

¶6

Mahalaxmi Automotives Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w Surel Shah, Senior Advocate i/by Jagdish Aradwad Reddy, for the Petitioner. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Govt. Pleader a/w O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader & G. R. Raghuwanshi, for the Respondent No.1/State.

¶9

Mr. A. V. Pawaskar, for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶10

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

¶11

DATE : 11^th OCTOBER, 2024

¶12

P. C.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave of the Court to amend the Petition in terms of the draft amendment tendered today. The draft amendment is taken on record.

¶14

Having regard to the nature of amendment sought, leave is granted to amend the Petition in terms of the draft amendment. Learned counsel for the Petitioner shall incorporate the necessary amendment during the course of the day. Re-verification is dispensed with.

¶15

The Petitioner shall furnish amended Petition within a week.

¶16

BGP. 1 of 3

¶17

(2)-WP-13109-24.doc .

¶18

Issue notice to Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and newly added Respondent No.5, returnable on 18^th November, 2024 . To be placed high on board .

¶19

Learned AGP waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. A. V. Pawaskar appears for Respondent Nos.2 to 3 and waives service of notice. They pray for and are granted two weeks time to file affidavit-in-reply, to which, rejoinder affidavit, if any, shall be filed by the Petitioner by the next date of listing.

¶20

It has been argued by Mr. Milind Sathe, learned senior counsel representing the Petitioner that the screenshot of the information available on the portal reveals that on 29^th September, 2024 at 05:22 p.m., out of eight bidders only one, namely Ajil Fibertech had qualified in the bid process and rest of the bidders have been depicted in the said information as disqualified, however, the information available on the web portal on 10^th October, 2024 shows that out of eight participants, four were disqualified and four had qualified in the bid process, including Ozone Envirotech, which firm is shown to have been disqualified on 29^th September, 2024. The submission is that the tender has been allotted, now to Ozone Envirotech, which was initially shown to have been disqualified on 29^th September, 2024. In these facts, the submission of Mr. Milind Sathe is that the tender process undertaken by the Respondent–Zilla Parishad cannot in any manner be said to be

¶21

2 of 3

¶22

BGP.

¶23

(2)-WP-13109-24.doc .

¶24

fair. Mr. A. V. Pawaskar representing the Zilla Parishad has, however, stated that initially certain participants were declared to be disqualified, however, they were granted opportunity to remove the defects/overcome the shortfall and in re-evaluation the bidders were found to have qualified, including Ozone Envirotech.

¶25

If that is the process adopted by the Respondent – Zilla Parishad, such a process adopted by the Zilla Parishad, primafacie, appears to be unfair, in as much as, once a participating firm is declared to have disqualified, giving opportunity to such a firm to remove the defects etc. does not appear to be a proper course. Such opportunity has to necessarily precede the evaluation and it is not that the evaluation should precede the opportunity. For the said reason, as an interim measure, it is directed that till the next date of listing, the impugned work order shall not be given effect.

¶26

[AMIT BORKAR, J.]

¶27

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶28

3 of 3

¶29

BGP.

Mahalaxmi Automotives Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra Thr Its Prin. Secretary, Rural Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahalaxmi Automotives Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra Thr Its Prin. Secretary, Rural Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Shakti Welfare Association vs State of Maharashtra Th. Principal Secretary Maharashtra, Forest Dept

Perto India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

Shiv Shakti Welfare Association vs State of Maharashtra Th. Principal Secretary Maharashtra, Forest Dept and 5 Ors.

Motilal NAGAR-1 Panchshil Co-Op Housing Society Limited vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Kamal Jagdish Singh vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Raheja Universal (Pvt) Limited vs State of Maharashtra, Environment Department Th. Office of Govt. Pleader