M/S Mahi Constructions Thr. Proprietor, Sanjaykumar K. Bulchandani vs Zilla Parishad Gondia, Thr. Chief Executive Officer, Gondia and Another

Heard Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Kapgate, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 7.

¶12

The petition questions the rejection of the offer of the petitioner, tendered in respect of the NIT dated 21/09/2024 for constituting a panel of contractors for electrical works in 327 locations.

¶13

Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the condition of Geo-tagging is not an essential condition, apart from the fact, that the petitioner has been discriminated, as other persons, who are not eligible have been considered.

KHUNTE

2-wp6215.24.odt

2/3

The above contention is opposed by Mr.Kapgate learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 7, contending that the petitioner has failed to submit the Geotagging photographs, to indicate compliance, which is the term in the NIT in that regard, which according to them was essential.

¶18

To consider the above controversy, it is necessary to consider the language of the relevant term No.31 (Pg.30) of the NIT, which runs as under:

¶19

^^31- fufonsrhy izlrkfor dkekaps izR;{k LFkG HksV vgoky da=kVnkjkus Lok{kjhlghr] ftih,l yksds’kulg fufonsrhy rkaf=d fyQkQk e/;s yko.ks vko’;d vkgs- dkekaph ;knh Lora=fjR;k fufonsyk tksM.;kar vkysyh vkgs-**

¶20

A perusal of the above language, would indicate, that the term in the NIT for submitting the photographs with GPS location was an essential term, as it indicated, that the tenderer had visited each and every site and accordingly had the knowledge of the location and the situation at every site in terms of which, he was expected to submit an overall bid, for the purpose of offering his services for electrification of the water works to be carried out at those sites. It would, therefore, not be proper to contend, that the clause in the NIT, regarding submitting Geo-tag photographs was a non-essential condition.

¶21

A perusal of the sheet prepared by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Pg.100) indicates, that the respondent Nos.3

¶22

KHUNTE

¶23

2-wp6215.24.odt

¶24

to 7, had submitted the Geo-tagging photographs, of all the sites. The other persons indicated at Sr.Nos.1 to 6 and 8, admittedly, according to the chart, had not submitted the complete set of Geo-tag photographs. It is also necessary to note that all the tenderers at Sr.Nos.1 to 12 were held to be ineligible though the respondent Nos.3 to 7 were held to be ineligible on some other count. It is also an admitted position that all the tenderers, were granted a day’s time, to rectify the defects, by the end of 05/10/2024, by which time, all except the petitioner, are claimed to have submitted the Geo-tag photographs in respect of all the 327 sites. The petitioner as is the admitted position did not do so as indicated by Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, upon a query being made by the Court. If that be so, and since we have already held that the condition in the NIT of submitting Geo-tag photograph is an essential condition, non-compliance thereof would indicate that the bid of the petitioner has rightly not been considered. We therefore do not see any ground made out to interfere in the instant petition at the behest of the petitioner on account of the fact, that it has been held to be ineligible on account of non-submission of Geo-tag photographs in respect of all the 327 sites. The petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶25

Needless to say, that the interim order granted earlier stands vacated.

¶26

(ABHAY J. MANTRI,J) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J)

¶27

Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 24/02/2025 18:40:34 KHUNTE

M/S Mahi Constructions Thr. Proprietor, Sanjaykumar K. Bulchandani v. Zilla Parishad Gondia, Thr. Chief Executive Officer, Gondia and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mahi Constructions Thr. Proprietor, Sanjaykumar K. Bulchandani v. Zilla Parishad Gondia, Thr. Chief Executive Officer, Gondia and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mithun Jagannath Madavi vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Tribal Development, Mumbai and Ors.

Shriram Khiru Kamble and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Ors.

Tushar Sharad Kothari Vs Shri. Deodatt Rahane, Secetary Urban Developmnt Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Vidyanand S/O Upasrao Masarkar and Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Principal Sec. Dept. of Urban Development and Urban Land Ceiling, Mumbai and Ors.

Ameya Hansraj Bhaisare vs State of Maha. Thr. Its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Smt. Ishwari W/O Surendra Gaure vs Maharashtra State through , Its Secretary, Dept of Home Affiars, Mumbai and Others