Mahendra Realtors and Infrastructure Private Limited vs the Managing Director, Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation Limited

¶1

28-WP.1915.2025.doc

¶2

Jvs.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

JAYANT VISHWANATH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1915 OF 2025

¶6

SALUNKE

¶7

Digitally signed by JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Date: 2025.06.24 19:15:06 +0530

¶8

Mahendra Realtors and Infrastructure	}
Private Limited versus	} Petitioner
The Managing Director, Maharashtra	}
Fisheries Development Corporation	}
Limited & Anr.	} Respondent

¶9

Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare i/b. Mr. Nikhil V. Adkine for petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Rajiv Chavan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chaitanya B. Nikte, Mr. Ritvij Kale and Mr. Prajit Shahane for respondent.

¶11

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶12

DATE: JUNE 24, 2025

¶13

ORDER: (Per: Chief Justice)

¶14

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the tenders dated 26^th July 2024, 6^th August 2024 and 5^th September 2024 issued by the Managing Director of Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”).

¶15

2. Facts giving rise to filing of the petition, in nutshell, are that the tender notice dated 5^th September 2024 has been issued by the Corporation for the work of strengthening of the existing quay wall in Old Sasoon Dock, Colaba, Mumbai for an estimated sum of Rs.13,08,20,609/-. The petitioner has assailed

¶16

1

¶17

28-WP.1915.2025.doc

¶18

the eligibility conditions in the aforesaid tender on the ground that the same are rigorous, stringent and have been framed with a view to favour one particular bidder.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner did not submit its bid in response to the aforesaid notices inviting tender. It is submitted that the stringent eligibility conditions have been prescribed in the notice inviting tender which excludes the petitioner and have been prescribed only with a view to favour one particular bidder.

¶20

4. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the Corporation submits that in response to the aforesaid notice inviting tender, the Corporation has received three bids and the work order has already been issued.

¶21

5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

6. In the case of Shamnit Utsch India Private Limited vs. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited¹ , the Supreme Court, while taking note of the law laid down in Assn. of Registration Plates vs. Union of India² , reiterated that the tendering authority has right to get the right and most competent person and in the matter of formulating conditions of tender document, unless the action of tendering authority is found to be malicious or is a misuse of statutory powers, the tender conditions are unassailable.

¶23

7. The scope of judicial review is extremely limited in the matter of formulating eligibility conditions. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the eligibility criteria has

¶24

1 (2010) 6 SCC 303

¶25

2 (2005) 1 SCC 679

¶26

2

¶27

28-WP.1915.2025.doc

¶28

been prescribed to favour a particular bidder does not deserve acceptance as, admittedly, three bids were submitted. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not chosen to implead the bidder, which, according to the petitioner, was sought to be favoured by the Corporation. It is also pertinent to note that the work order has already been issued in favour of the successful bidder, which is not before us.

¶29

8. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is, hereby dismissed.

¶30

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶31

3

Mahendra Realtors and Infrastructure Private Limited v. the Managing Director, Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Realtors and Infrastructure Private Limited v. the Managing Director, Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hiren Gala vs Ms Sheth and Sonal Developers

Tata Motors Finance Limited vs Majid Transport Co.

Allied Blender and Distillers Limited vs Uto Nederrland B.V. and 2 Ors.

Anil Raghunath Gachke vs the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Manisha Mahiskar and 2 Ors.

Shantilal Parmar vs Messers Cambtex

PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited vs Way2Safe Imf Private Limited