Abm Enterprises vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

¶1

Megha 15_wp_4628_2024.docx

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4628 OF 2024

¶4

ABM Enterprises A proprietorship firm, through its proprietor, Mr. Aliasagar Moiz Chitalwala ...Petitioner

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

¶7

Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

¶8

Joint Municipal Commissioner, Central Joint Purchase Department, MCGM.

¶9

The Registrar, Grievance Redressal Committee, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

¶10

Chief Engineer (Mechanical and Electrical).

¶11

Executive Engineer, MECH (South), Municipal Workshop, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

¶12

AIFSO Technologies Private Limited

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Mr. Javeed Hussein with Ms. Zubi Ansari i/b. Hussein & Co. for Petitioner.

¶15

Mr. Chaitanya Chavan with Ms. Chaitalee Deochake i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi for Respondent Nos.1 to 6-MCGM.

¶16

Mr. V.R. Dhond, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naresh Chheda & Ms. Sakina Electricwala i/b. M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for Respondent No.7.

¶17

Page No. 1 of 6

¶18

18 June 2025

¶19

Megha 15_wp_4628_2024.docx

¶20

Mr. Amal Mohite, Executive Engineer with Mr. Suresh Patil, AE(M/E), MCGM present.

¶21

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &

¶22

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated: 18 JUNE 2025.

¶23

ORAL ORDER ( Per Sandeep V. Marne, J.) :

¶24

By this Petition, Petitioner challenges rejection of its bid vide communications dated 15 February 2024 and 21 February 2024. In the tender process implemented by the Respondent -Municipal Corporation, Petitioner’s bid has been rejected on the ground of failure to meet the eligibility criteria.

¶25

The Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (MCGM) issued Tender Notice dated 9 October 2023 for execution of the work of disposal of water pipeline scrap lying at various hospitals, maternity homes, dispensaries and all other departments of MCGM. One of the eligibility criteria prescribed in the tender was satisfactory execution of work of similar nature in BMC /government / semi government / public sector organisation during past 7 years. Another essential criteria was possession of prior specialised experience in the disposal of water pipeline scrap with minimum diameter of 1200 mm and above specifically of M.S. Material. Petitioner participated in the tender process by submitting its bid. Two other bidders also participated in the tender process. Upon technical scrutiny of the three bids it was found that there were several shortfalls in the bid of the Petitioner and accordingly email dated 12 January 2024 was sent to the Petitioner to clear the shortfall

¶26

Page No. 2 of 6

¶27

18 June 2025

¶28

Megha 15_wp_4628_2024.docx

¶29

documents. Petitioner replied vide email dated 16 January 2024. It had relied upon work completion certificate issued by the Liquidator- Mr. Huzefa Fakhri Sitabkhan in respect of M/s. Essar Power (Jharkhand) Ltd. The MCGM made an enquiry with the said Liquidator, who clarified that M/s. Essar Power (Jharkhand) Ltd. is a private sector company. A legal opinion was sought and thereafter decision was taken to reject the Petitioner’s bid as non-responsive. Financial packets in respect of the two other eligible bidders were opened and Respondent No.7 was adjudged as successful bidder and has been awarded the work. Petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of its bid and award of contract to Respondent No.7 and has accordingly filed the present Petition.

¶30

Mr. Javeed Hussein, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned tender condition of completion of work for government/semi government /public sector organisation and experience of disposal of water pipeline scrap of minimum 1200 mm diameter is exfacie illegal and arbitrary. That the said condition was tailor-made to suit Respondent No.7. That during 2019-20 similar tender was issued in which the criteria of possession of experience of disposal of water pipeline scrap of minimum 1200 mm diameter was absent. Similarly, the previous tender process permitted submission of work experience of a private sector organisation. Without prejudice, he would submit that Petitioner has performed similar work for National Company Law Tribunal ( NCLT ), which cannot be treated as a private organisation. That execution of work awarded by Liquidator appointed by the Tribunal would necessarily satisfy the criteria stipulated in the tender document. He would therefore, submit that rejection of Petitioner’s bid is arbitrary and irrational. That bid of Respondent No.7 is for Rs.46.26 crores, which is Rs.12 crores less than that of the Petitioner.

¶31

Page No. 3 of 6

¶32

18 June 2025

¶33

Megha 15_wp_4628_2024.docx

¶34

That therefore award of contract to Respondent No.7 would put the MCGM to financial losses. He would therefore pray for setting aside award of contract to Respondent No.7 and would pray for award of the contract to the Petitioner.

¶35

Petition is opposed by Mr. Chaitanya Chavan, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 -MCGM. He would submit that Petitioner’s bid has rightly been rejected due to non-compliance with the specific eligibility criteria prescribed in the tender document. That Petitioner did not attend the pre-bid meeting nor raised any queries. Since the Petitioner does not possess experience of public sector organisation /government /semi government or specialised experience in disposal of water pipeline scrap with minimum diameter of 1200 mm., it has rightly been disqualified. He would submit that the MCGM specifically queried with the Liquidator, who clarified that M/s. Essar Power (Jharkhand) Ltd. is a private organisation and not a public sector company. He would pray for dismissal of the Petition.

¶36

Mr. Dhond, the learned senior advocate appearing for Respondent No.7 would also oppose the Petition and he would submit that Respondent No.7 has satisfied all the eligibility criteria prescribed in the tender document and has emerged as a successful bidder. That Petitioner participated in the tender by submitting its bid and cannot now be permitted to turn around and question the tender conditions. He would submit that Petitioner neither possesses the qualification of having executed work of government/ semi government/public sector undertaking nor possesses experience of water pipeline scrap of minimum 1200 mm diameter. He would submit that Respondent No.7 has already been awarded the contract and there is no warrant for

¶37

Page No. 4 of 6

¶38

18 June 2025

¶39

Megha 15_wp_4628_2024.docx

¶40

interference in the tender process implemented by the MCGM. He would pray for dismissal of the Petition.

¶41

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶42

Though Mr. Hussein has strenuously contended before us that inclusion of eligibility criteria of execution of work of similar nature with BMC/semi government/ government/ public sector organisation during past 7 years as well as the condition of possessing specialised experience of disposal of water pipelines scrap of minimum 1200 mm diameter is arbitrary and irrational, we find that the said ground is not raised in the entire Petition. Petitioner has thus not questioned the correctness or illegality of inclusion of the eligibility condition in the tender document. It participated in the tender process by submitting its bid without questioning the tender eligibility condition.

¶43

There is no dispute to the position that Petitioner does not possess the specialised experience of disposal of water pipeline scrap of minimum 1200 mm diameter. The case thus, involves admitted position of non meeting of one of the prescribed eligibility criteria.

¶44

So far as the other eligibility criteria of having executed the work of similar nature for BMC/ government/ semi government/ public sector organisation is concerned, it is sought to be contended by the Petitioner that it possesses experience of having executed the work allotted by Liquidator of M/s. Essar Power (Jharkhand) Ltd. of dismantling, de-fabricating and removing the M.S. fabricated steel and scrap forming part of under construction thermal power plant of the

¶45

Page No. 5 of 6

¶46

18 June 2025

¶47

Megha 15_wp_4628_2024.docx

¶48

company. It is contended that M/s. Essar Power (Jharkhand) Ltd. is under liquidation and the work was awarded by the Liquidator appointed by the NCLT. The Petitioner therefore contends that it fulfills the eligibility of having executed similar work for a government organisation. It appears that for verifying the claim of the Petitioner of having executed similar work for government organisation, the MCGM raised a query with the Liquidator. The Liquidator has clarified in writing that M/s. Essar Power (Jharkhand) Ltd. is not a public sector organisation. The MCGM has accordingly refused to take into consideration work experience claimed by the Petitioner in respect of the work awarded by the said Liquidator. We do not find any element of perversity, arbitrariness or irrationality in the decision of the MCGM in this regard.

¶49

The Petitioner thus failed to meet the eligibility criteria prescribed in the tender document. Petitioner’s complaint of eligibility criteria being tailor-made is neither pleaded nor can be permitted to be raised as Petitioner has participated in the tender process by submitting its bid without any demur. It cannot now be permitted to take a volte-face and question the correctness or legality of eligibility criteria stipulated in the tender document.

¶50

The Petition is accordingly dismissed without any orders as

¶51

to costs.

¶52

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶53

Digitally signed by MEGHA MEGHA SHREEDHAR SHREEDHAR PARAB PARAB Date: 2025.06.20 20:04:16 +0530

¶54

Page No. 6 of 6 18 June 2025

Abm Enterprises v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abm Enterprises v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gcdl Smbipl Jv vs Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation Ltd.

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Ajay Khatana

Tata Capital Limited vs Tej Pal Kanaram Choudhary

Ndt Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (Sewerage Operation Department)

Manas Shelter Pvt. Ltd. vs Madhavlal Narayanlal Pittie (Since Deceased)

Global Logistics Private Limited vs Transport Corporation of India Ltd.