Dismissed¶¶33

Sumit Facilities Ltd. v. Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune Thr Its Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jan 2025WP/9974/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tender challenge; public procurement; Pune Municipal Corporation; outsourcing of sweeping/sanitary work; Wanawadi–Remtekdi region 2024-25; identical financial bids; selection of L1 contractor by lottery/draw of lots; No Objection Statement; video-graphed process; alleged eligibility discrepancies; arbitrariness and lack of transparency; cancellation of work order sought; unsuccessful bidder; model code of conduct; Lok Sabha Polls 2024; writ petition dismissed; easy on costs; no precedent cited; no statutory provision discussed.

What did the court decide?

Counsel for the petitioner was not able to demonstrate any arbitrariness in the tender/lottery process which would warrant judicial intervention. ¶¶33

Sumit Facilities Ltd. vs Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune Thr Its Municipal Commissioner and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the tender process adopted by the Pune Municipal Corporation for outsourcing sweeping work in the Wanawadi–Remtekdi region (2024-25) and the resulting work order in favour of respondent no.6 were arbitrary and lacking transparency, warranting cancellation of the tender process and the work order. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

Counsel for the petitioner was not able to demonstrate any arbitrariness in the tender/lottery process which would warrant judicial intervention.

¶¶33

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is refused to be entertained and is dismissed.

¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 9974 of 2024 with Interim Application No. 12351 of 2024, decided 4 March 2025 (order per Bharati Dangre, J.; Alok Aradhe, CJ sitting with her): Sumeet Facilities Ltd., an unsuccessful bidder, challenged Pune Municipal Corporation's allotment of its tender for outsourcing sweeping work in the Wanawadi–Remtekdi region (2024-25) to respondent no.6, M/s. LVG Facility India Pvt. Ltd., alleging non-consideration of its financial bid, eligibility discrepancies in respondent no.6's bid, and an arbitrary, non-transparent process, praying for cancellation of the tender process and the work order issued on 18/7/2024 (agreement 23/7/2024). Six bids were received; after technical scrutiny with opportunity to cure deficiencies, four bidders qualified; their financial bids opened on 10/6/2024 quoted identical rates, whereupon L1 was selected by draw of lots on 14/6/2024 in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner, Zone IV, all contractors signing a No Objection Statement, the process being video-graphed and unobjected to at the time. The petitioner, whose 2023-24 contract had ended on 16/5/2024 (continued meanwhile owing to the model code of conduct for the 2024 Lok Sabha Polls), could point to no demonstrated arbitrariness. Held: in the absence of demonstrated arbitrariness warranting judicial intervention, the writ petition is dismissed, easy on costs.

¶1

1/5 28 WP 9974-24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9974 OF 2024 WITH

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 12351 OF 2024

¶4

Sumeet Facilities Ltd.

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

.. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors. Respondents

¶8

Mr.Siddharth Chavde i/b Mr. Chinmay Patil for the petitioner. Mr.Vishwanath Patil a/w Shantanu H. Katkar for respondent nos.1 to 5 (PMC).

¶9

Mr.Radhikesh Uttarwar with Ms. Pooja R. Thakur for respondent no.6 (through VC).

¶10

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ & BHARATI DANGRE, J DATED : 4^th MARCH, 2025

¶11

ORDER (Per Bharati Dangre, J)

¶12

1 The present petition is filed being aggrieved by nonconsideration of the financial bid of the petitioner and instead declaring respondent no.6 as a lowest bidder and subsequently, issuing the work order for outsourcing sweeping work in the Wanawadi – Remtekdi region for the year 2024-25 in its favour. 2 Heard respective counsel for the parties.

¶13

Tilak

¶14

2/5 28 WP 9974-24.doc

¶15

The respondent Pune Municipal Corporation published a tender for the purpose of outsourcing sweeping work in Wanawadi – Remtekdi region for the year 2024-25 and the petitioner finding itself to be eligible participated in the process along with respondent no.6. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.6 did not meet the mandatory terms and conditions of eligibility but was cleared the technical assessment along with the petitioner, as on technical scrutiny, out of six bidders, two were disqualified and four bidders including the petitioner and respondent no.6 were declared to be qualified.

¶16

On 10/6/2024, when the Corporation opened the financial bids of the qualified bidders, and all the bidders emerged as lowest, and in such circumstances, the winning bidder had to be selected by way of lottery. However, it is according to the petitioner that despite existence of various discrepancies and errors in the bid submitted by respondent no.6, the bid of respondent no.6 was allowed which resulted in issuance of work order in its favour on 18/7/2024 to be followed by an agreement entered on 23/7/2024.

¶17

It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that the process adopted by the respondent Corporation is arbitrary as it lack transparency and the respondent no.6, who did not meet with the necessary mandatory stipulations, without taking into consideration the objection raised by the petitioner, as regards its qualification, a decision was taken to allot the work in its favour

¶18

Tilak

¶19

3/5 28 WP 9974-24.doc

¶20

and it is therefore, alleged that respondent no.6 was unduly favoured at the cost of the petitioner and therefore, it is prayed that not only the tender process but the work order issued in favour of the respondent no.6, be cancelled.

¶21

3 Respondent no.1 i.e. Corporation through the Zonal Commissioner has filed its affidavit, categorically stating that pursuant to the advertisement issued, six bids were received, and on 2/4/2024, technical bids were opened and on 4/4/2024, technical scrutiny of online bids started and opportunity was given to all the six bidders to comply with the necessary requirements since their bids were found to be deficit in some aspects. The petitioner therefore, submitted the necessary documents on 16/4/2024 whereas the respondent no.6 submitted the documents on 28/4/2024.

¶22

It is further submitted that on 10/6/2024, packet ‘B’ (financial bid of the subject work) was opened and four contractors were qualified, but since they quoted the same rate, the process of selecting L1, was conducted by way of lottery and all the bidders were directed to remain present.

¶23

In the present of the Deputy Commissioner, Zone IV, Pune Municipal Corporation, on 14/6/2024, the lots were drawn and all the contractors signed the No Objection Statement for conducting the lottery. In the said lottery, respondent no.6 i.e. M/s. LVG Facility India Pvt. Ltd, was selected as L1 contractor. It is categorically stated that the entire process is video-graphed

¶24

Tilak

¶25

4/5 28 WP 9974-24.doc

¶26

and the petitioner did not raise any objection as regards the process followed at the relevant point of time.

¶27

In the wake of the aforesaid process followed, the work order was issued in favour of respondent no.6 on 18/7/2024 and on 23/6/2024, the contract agreement fo the subject work was executed, since it was necessary to immediately give effect to the contract which was intended to deploy labour to conduct sanitary work such as sweeping and other cleaning activities within the territorial jurisdiction of Wanawadi – Remtekdi region for the year 2023024.

¶28

It is categorically stated that though the petitioner was allotted the contract for the earlier year i.e. 2023-2024, which came to an end on 16/5/2024. However, in the wake of the model code of conduct enforced due to the ensuing Lok Sabha Polls of 2024, no fresh tender was published and the petitioner was permitted to continue the work beyond expiry of the contract.

¶29

However, when the tender was published for the year 2024-2025, he could not have continued with the said work which was then allotted to respondent no.6.

¶30

4 Respondent no.6 has also filed its affidavit in reply, stating that in pursuance to the tender floated by Municipal Corporation, he was declared as a successful L1 bidder on 14/6/2024, and was allotted with the work. It is specifically denied that the petitioner did not satisfy with the requirements of the tender stipulations

¶31

Tilak

¶32

5/5 28 WP 9974-24.doc

¶33

and it is specifically submitted by the learned counsel representing respondent no.6 that through a transparent process, the work was allotted in its favour and the work order being issued in favour of respondent no.6 on 18/7/2024, which was to remain in force for a period of 365 days, since the counsel for the petitioner is not able to demonstrate any arbitrariness in the process which would warrant any judicial intervention, we refuse to entertain the Writ petition and we dismiss the same.

Easy on costs.

(BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

Tilak

Sumit Facilities Ltd. v. Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune Thr Its Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Facilities Ltd. v. Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune Thr Its Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

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

Manoaj Nautamlal Shah vs Dev Land and Housing Ltd.

Mahendra Ramniklal Shah vs M/S Gangar Infrastructure

Anant Vasudeo Sawant vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Divisional Joint Registrar

Heart and Soul Entertainment Ltd. vs Deepak Shivkumar Bahry

Trimurti Jankalyan Sanstha through Its Treasurer vs Bombay Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner

Dev Engineers through Its Partner Raghuvir Purohit vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary Department of Forest Cultural Affairs and Fisheries