The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's bid and the issuance of a Letter of Intent to another respondent, finding the petitioner's contentions baseless.
The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
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.
Digitally signed by MULEY MULEYSHUBHAMPRAVINRAO SHUBHAMPRAVINRAODate:2024.03.26 17:24:20 +0530
1 903-WP-3639-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3639 OF 2024
Maha Informatics Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for Petitioner.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, GP, Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP, Ms. A. A. Nadkarni, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Kiran Gandhi a/w Aakash Kothari i/by Little & Co. for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil a/w Mr. Divyesh Jain and Shubham Wadne for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATED : 22nd MARCH, 2024
P.C. :
setting aside of (i) the letter dated 29th February, 2024, by
which, Respondent No.2 i.e. Maharashtra State Board of
1 of 5
Shubham
2 903-WP-3639-2024.doc
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Mumbai Division has rejected the Petitioner’s bid for providing man power services to Respondent No.2 and (ii) the Letter of Intent dated 22-02-2024/28-02-2024 (Exhibit ‘P’ to the Petition), by which Respondent No.2 asked Respondent No.3 i.e. M/s. Frontier ExServicemen Association, Latur to comply with certain conditions for issuance of work order in its favour.
2 of 5
Shubham
3 903-WP-3639-2024.doc
February, 2024, whereas, the impugned Letter of Intent was issued by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.3 on 22-022024/28-02-2024, which is clearly before the Petitioner's financial bid was opened by Respondent No.2. He thus submitted that the award of the said Letter of Intent in favour of Respondent No.3 was clearly premeditated and thus liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
respect of one “M/s. Frontier Ex-Servicemen Association Security Force, Latur” whereas Respondent No.3 was “M/s. Frontier Ex-Servicemen Association, Latur”. Basis this he submitted that Respondent No.3 having claimed eligibility on the basis of documents which pertained to another entity, ought to be disqualified on that ground alone.
3 of 5
Shubham
4 903-WP-3639-2024.doc
Petitioner were baseless and entirely devoid of merit. In dealing with the Petitioner's first contention, he pointed out that though the Letter of Intent was dated 22-02-2024/28-02-2024, the same was issued and digitally signed and uploaded at 5.30 p.m. on 29th February, 2024 i.e. after the Petitioner’s financial bid was opened. He invited our attention to the endorsement on the second page of the said letter from which the same was evident.
4 of 5
Shubham
5 903-WP-3639-2024.doc
devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
5 of 5
Shubham
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the issuance of a Letter of Intent before the financial bid opening justifies quashing the tender process.
Whether the eligibility documents submitted by the respondent pertained to a different entity and caused disqualification.
Maha Informatics Pvt. Ltd.
State of Maharashtra
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education
M/s Frontier ExServicemen Association, Latur
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA
ARIF S. DOCTOR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
