Jagdamba Mahila Readymade Dresses Vividh Utpadan Sahakari Sanstha vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal and Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.10318 OF 2025

Jagdamba Mahila Readymade Dresses, ] Vividh Utpadan Sahakari Sanstha, ] A Co-operative Society duly registered ] under the provisions of the Maharashtra ] Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and duly ] registered as a Society for Disabled Persons ] under the Rights of Persons with Disability ] Act, 2016, through its Auth. Representative: ] Mr. Tushar Gadale, age – about 50 years, ] Occupation – Business, having address at: ] Plot No.11, New Pacha Peth, Padma Nagar, ] Akkalkot Road, Solapur ] ..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Maharashtra, ] Through the Principal Secretary, ] 2. The Secretary, ] Tribal Development Department, ] State of Maharashtra ] 3. The Commissioner, ] Tribal Development Department, ] State of Maharashtra ]

¶6

Secretary (Industries), ] Directorate of Industries, ] Industries Department, ] State of Maharashtra.

¶7

] ..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate and Mr. Rohan Mirpury, i/by Mr. Yogesh Thorat, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader and Mr. S.H. Kankal, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

¶11

DATE : 9^TH MARCH 2026.

¶12

1/12

¶13

3-WP-10318-2025 modifies..doc

¶14

Dixit

¶15

“JUDGMENT”

¶16

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, C.J.

¶17

The petitioner is a Cooperative society duly registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It seeks to challenge the Tender Notice bearing no.03/2025 issued on 6^th June 2025 inviting bids for the supply of school uniforms, night dresses and P.T. dresses to the Government Ashram Schools. It has also questioned and Tender Notice bearing no.2025_CTDN_1195217_1 issued on 28^th June 2025, inviting bids for the supply of school uniforms to the students of Eklavya Model Residential Schools for the academic year 2025-26.

¶18

By an order dated 28^th July 2025, this Court had directed the respondents not to issue work orders, if not already issued. This interim order is still in force and the students of the Government Ashram Schools and Eklavya Model Residential Schools have been deprived of the school uniforms, night dresses, and PT dresses.

¶19

The petitioner-Society by way of this writ petition has prayed mainly for the following reliefs:

¶20

“a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondent No.2 and 3 to cancel the First Impugned Tender i.e. Tender bearing no.03/2025 for supply of uniform, night dress and P.T. dress to Government Ashram Schools for academic year 2025-2026.

¶21

b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to cancel the Second Impugned Tender i.e. Tender bearing no. 2025_CTDN_1195217_1 for supply of school uniform to the students of the Eklavya Model Residential Schools of the Government of Maharashtra for the academic year 2025-2026;

¶22

c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to allow the Petitioner to complete the supply under the Work Order dated 14/10/2024 in respect of sweaters, blazers, track

¶23

2/12

¶24

3-WP-10318-2025 modifies..doc

¶25

Dixit

¶26

suits, etc. to the students of the Eklavya Model Residential Schools under the Tribal Development Department, State of Maharashtra;

¶27

(d) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No.2 and 3 to issue the work order to the Petitioner for supply of school uniforms to the students of the Ashram Schools as well as the Eklavya Model Residential Schools under the Tribal Development Department, State of Maharashtra in accordance with Clause 5.15 of the Manul of Office Procedures for Procurement by Government Departments published vide Government Resolution dated 1/12/2016 read with the Government Resolution dated 09/12/2022 and the price fixation order dated 27/09/2023;”

¶28

The petitioner-Society comprises of a total of 46 members out of which 3 members are blind and 18 members are persons with disabilities. It is inter alia engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of school uniforms, P.T. uniforms, night dresses, blazers, ties, jackets, socks etc. that are required by the school students. The petitioner-Society claims that it employs about 250 persons with disabilities and one of its objectives is to provide employment opportunities to the persons with disabilities including blind persons. The petitioner-Society is also registered under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with the Department of Social Justice, State of Maharashtra. The petitioner-Society states that since there was no other society in Appendix-18 of the procurement policy that had a valid and existing price fixation order for the same nature of products as manufactured by the petitioner-Society, it was preparing to supply the products for academic year 2025-2026. However, instead of granting permission to the petitioner-Society to supply the products allotted to it under the work order dated 14^th October 2024, the respondent no. 2 and 3 issued the Tender Notice bearing no.03/2025. The petitioner-Society raised an objection to the abovementioned Tender Notice but the respondent no. 3 did not take any decision on the objection and issued the Second Tender on 28^th June 2025 for the procurement of school uniforms

¶29

3/12

¶30

3-WP-10318-2025 modifies..doc

¶31

Dixit

¶32

for the students of Eklavya Model Residential Schools under the Tribal Development Department, for the academic year 20252026.

¶33

The objection raised on behalf of the petitioner-Society is that the rates published under Appendix-18 in the Government Resolution dated 1^st December 2016 have been rendered irrelevant on account of the tender conditions imposed by the Tribal Development Department and the organizations like the petitioner-Society are compelled to pay higher price if they intend to accept the work order.

¶34

Clause 2 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Tender reads as under:

¶35

“2. As per the Government Decision of the Department of Industry, Energy and Labour dated 1/12/2016, para 5.15, the blind and disabled organizations which have reserved the matter of uniforms produced by them, such organizations will be given priority if they participate in the tender and meet the terms and conditions of the tender. Even if the rates of such organizations do not reach the minimum, they will be given work orders if they are eager to do the work at the minimum rate obtained in the tender.”

¶36

On 7^th October 2025, this Court passed the following order:

¶37

“ Notwithstanding maintainability of this petition on the ground that the petitioner-Sahakari Sanstha did not participate in the tender process, this Court finds that there is an apparent inconsistency in the Government Resolution dated 1st December 2016 issued by the Department of Industries, Energy and Labour and the General Terms and Conditions of the Tender under Clause 2. The rates published under Appendix-18 to the said Government Resolution seems to have been rendered irrelevant because Clause 2 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Tender provides that even if the rates of such organizations do not reach the minimum, they will be given work at the minimum rate obtained in the Tender.

¶38

2. We further find that the Government Resolution dated 1^st December 2016 does not provide any limit for making reservation or quota for the purchase from the organizations enlisted under Appendix-18.

¶39

3. Let an affidavit be filed by or on behalf of the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra on this issue.”

¶40

4/12

¶41

3-WP-10318-2025 modifies..doc

¶42

Dixit

¶43

The Finance Department, in its affidavit dated 3^rd November 2025, states that the Maharashtra Government Rules of Business were framed on 26^th June 1975 under clauses 2 and 3 of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Under First Schedule of the Maharashtra Government Rules of Business, the Industries Department of the Government of Maharashtra is responsible for dealing with the subject relating to procurement. According to the Finance Department, the procurement policy of the Government of Maharashtra shall be looked into by the Industries Department under the Maharashtra Government Rules of Business and not by it or the respondent no.2.

¶44

In the affidavit dated 17^th November 2025 filed by the respondent no.4-Industries Department, it is stated that clause 5.15 of the procurement policy deals with purchases to be made from the organizations for the blind and disabled persons, subject to certain conditions and certifications. The purpose of such inclusion and reservation is welfare-oriented, aimed at ensuring socio-economic support to blind and disabled persons through structured Government Procurement Policy. It is stated that the competent authority constituted under the aforesaid clause and chaired by the Principal Secretary (Industries) examines the proposals received from the eligible organizations for blind and disabled persons for supply of products manufactured by it and after due diligence and certification from the Department of Social Justice, a decision thereon is taken. It is further stated that any lower bid received under a tender process shall have no bearing on or impact upon the rate-fixation order issued under the State Procurement Policy 2016. The relevant portions of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Industries Department read as under:

¶45

5/12

¶46

3-WP-10318-2025 modifies..doc

¶47

Dixit

¶48

“8. The rate structure for the organizations enlisted under Appendix-18 is strictly determined in accordance with the due process prescribed under Clause 5.15 of the State Procurement Policy 2016 (hereafter referred as policy). The said rates have been fixed by the Central Stores Purchase Committee (Central Stores Purchase Organization - CSPO) constituted under para-2.12 as well as functions of Central Stores Purchase Organization as per para2.11, after due consideration of quality parameters, production capacity, and prevailing market conditions. It is pertinent to note that a lower price of a product or goods does not necessarily imply superior quality, as the cost of an item is generally dependent on quality parameters and specifications. The reserved products for blind and disabled persons organization are required to be procured at the rates fixed under the Policy. The purpose of such inclusion and reservation is clearly welfare-oriented, aimed at ensuring socioeconomic support to blind and disabled persons through structured Government Procurement Policy. Accordingly, any lower bid received under a tender process shall have no bearing on or impact upon the rate-fixation order issued under the State Procurement Policy 2016.

¶49

9. Furthermore, it is noted that the Government Resolution dated 01.12.2016 in specific clause 5.15 does not prescribe any quantitative cap, quota or financial limit for procurement specifically from the organizations enlisted under Appendix-18.”

¶50

In paragraph no.11 of the affidavit dated 17^th November 2025, the Industries Department states that the concerned Procurement Department is required to initiate or invite tender in conformity with the applicable provisions under clause 5.15 of the State Procurement Policy 2016. Thus, the Procurement Department cannot initiate the tender process in breach of the said policy. The paragraph no.11 of the affidavit reads as under:

¶51

“11. it was incumbent upon the procuring department to not initiate/invite the tender process to act in conformity in accordance with the applicable provisions under clause 5.15 of the State Procurement Policy, 2016.”

¶52

Mr. Anil Anturkar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-Society submits that in view of the stand taken by the Industries Department, the impugned Tender Notices dated 6^th June 2025 and 28^th June 2025 warrants interference by this Court. It is further submitted that not inviting tenders as per the prescribed rates shall cause great hardship to the organizations

¶53

6/12

¶54

3-WP-10318-2025 modifies..doc

¶55

Dixit

¶56

like the petitioner-Society which helps the blind and other disabled persons to produce or manufacture the goods.

¶57

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3, which is sworn by the Deputy Commissioner, Commissionerate, Tribal Development Department, Nashik, a serious challenge to the maintainability of this writ petition has been laid. It is stated that clause 5.15 of the Revised Manual of Office Procedures for Procurement by the Government Departments does not completely prohibit the floating of an Open Tender for the procurement of school uniforms, night dresses, PT dresses etc. Clause 3.2 gives liberty to procure goods through different procurement methods including (i) Open Competitive Tender, (ii) Direct Purchase or Spot Purchase (iii) Purchase through Quotation, (iv) Limited Tender Restricted Tender etc. These respondents have laid a specific stress on clause 3.2.1 which provides that the purchase officer must always use Open Tender/Open Competitive Tender method of procurement unless there are compelling reasons to use other purchase methods as mentioned under clauses 3.3.2 to 3.3.8. It is further stated that the tendering authority is required to make purchase after having taken into consideration the principles of (i) optimum value for money integrity, (ii) transparency and honesty, (iii) optimum competition, (iv) long term interest of the Government, (v) Sustainable Procurement Policy etc. On the basis of these stipulations, the Tender Notices dated 6^th June 2025 and 28^th June 2025 are supported by the respondents.

¶58

These respondents have further stated that the award of work to the petitioner-Society vide work order dated 14^th October 20204 for the supply of school uniforms, night dresses, PT dresses etc. was challenged in Writ Petition No. 14245 of 2024 and an interim order was passed by this Court on 3^rd March 2025 not to

¶59

7/12

¶60

3-WP-10318-2025 modifies..doc

¶61

Dixit

¶62

make further payments to the petitioner-Society. However, a decision was taken by the tendering authority for procurement of school uniforms, night dresses, PT dresses etc. in view of the academic session 2025-2026 scheduled to commence from June 2025. The respondent nos.2 and 3 have taken the following stand in paragraph nos. 6 to 9 of the counter affidavit:

¶63

“6. In the past, for the Academic year 2024-2025, the Respondent No.3 had issued Work Orders to the Petitioner for the procurement of School Uniforms, Night Dresses, PT Dresses, etc. which were required for students of Government Ashram Schools. The said work orders were placed without following an Open Tender process and the work orders favouring the Petitioner were issued taking into consideration their inclusion in Appendix-18 [reference the GR dated9/12/2022 @ Exhibit Ppg.363 of the Petition issued by the Industries Department] as well as the rate fixation done by the Industries Department, of the items manufactured by the Petitioner. This entire process of the issuance of GR dt. 09/12/2022 including the issuance of work orders issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent No.4 for the supply of School Uniform, PT Dresses, Night Dresses, etc. was challenged before this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No.14245 of 2024 by a third party wherein the present Petitioner was arrayed as a Respondent.

¶64

7. Writ Petition No. 14245 of 2024 was filed on 23/08/24. On 3^rd March, 2025 the Hon’ble Bombay High Court passed an order directing the Respondent Authority to file their reply and also gave directions to stay its hands to release any further payments in favour of the present Petitioner.

¶65

8. That the academic session for the Academic Year 2025-26 commenced from June 2025, accordingly, it was imperative and important for the Respondent Tendering Authority to ensure timely procurement and supply of School Uniforms, PT Dresses, Night Dresses etc. for the students studying in its Government Ashram Schools and Eklavya Model Residential Schools.

¶66

9. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the situation more specifically the on-going proceedings i.e. Writ Petition No. 14245/2024 and the challenge therein as well as the orders passed therein, the Respondent Authority took a conscious call of floating Open tenders for procurement of the desired quantities of School Uniforms, night dresses etc. The decision of the Tendering Authority cannot be faulted with as none of the provisions of the manual makes it mandatory for the Tendering Authority to procure the items/goods from only Charitable Organizations of the Blind and Disabled. One of the main intentions behind taking the decision of

¶67

8/12

¶68

3-WP-10318-2025 modifies..doc

¶69

Dixit

¶70

floating an open tender was to avoid the unnecessary delay in supply of the uniforms, night dresses etc. to the final beneficiaries i.e. the Students.”

¶71

Mr. Anil Anturkar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-Society contended that non-participation of the petitioner-Society in the tender process shall not come in its way to challenge the impugned Tender Notices. It is submitted that a similar objection would have been taken had the petitioner-Society participated in the tender process. The real issue is the illegal manner in which the impugned Tender Notices have been floated and not whether the petitioner-Society has submitted its bid or not. In our opinion, the argument addressed as to nonparticipation of the petitioner-Society is in the realm of a probability. The fact remains that the petitioner-Society did not participate in the tendering process pursuant to the aforementioned Tender Notices. In tender matters, the writ Court shall not interfere on the basis of such an argument. The writ Court does not act on a mere possibility or probability (refer, “Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum”¹ ). The petitionerSociety may have a valid grievance against the tender conditions in the Tender Notices dated 6^th June 2025 and 28^th June 2025, but writ Court cannot interfere with the tender conditions at the instance of a non-participating person or entity like the petitionerSociety. A reference may be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “NHAI v. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Ltd.”² wherein in paragraph no.20, it was observed as under:

¶72

“20.While considering the relief claimed by the respondent (claimant), the same should have been tested on the touchstone of the principle governing the tender process, especially when the validity of the tender document has not been put in issue or challenged before any competent forum. Going by the terms and conditions in the tender documents, as already alluded to in para 10 above, there is no tittle of doubt that the right of the

¶73

1 1958 SCC OnLine SC 77

¶74

2 (2018) 8 SCC 243

¶75

9/12

¶76

3-WP-10318-2025 modifies..doc

¶77

Dixit

¶78

claimant (respondent) to match the bid of L-1 or to exercise ROFR would come into play only if the respondent was to participate in the tender process pursuant to the notice inviting tenders from the interested parties. The objective of tender process is not only to adhere to a transparent mechanism but to encourage competition and give equal opportunity to all tenderers with the end result of getting a fair offer or value for money. The plain wording of the eligibility clause in the tender documents and the incidental stipulations make it explicit that the respondent was required to participate in the tender process by submitting its sealed bid (technical and financial). The fact that a deeming clause has been provided in the tender document that if the respondent was to participate in the bidding process, it shall be deemed to fulfil all the requirements of the tender Clauses 3 to 6 of RFP, being the existing concessionaire of the project, does not exempt the respondent from participating in the tender process; rather the tenor of the terms of the documents made it obligatory for the respondent to participate in the tender process to be considered as a responsive bidder, along with others. Having failed to participate in the tender process and, more so, despite the express terms in the tender documents, validity whereof has not been challenged, the respondent cannot be heard to contend that it had acquired any right whatsoever. Only the entities who participate in the tender process pursuant to a tender notice can be allowed to make grievances about the non-fulfillment or breach of any of the terms and conditions of the tender documents concerned. The respondent who chose to stay away from the tender process, cannot be heard to whittle down, in any manner, the rights of the eligible bidders who had participated in the tender process on the basis of the written and express terms and conditions. At the culmination of the tender process, if the respondent had not participated, in law, the offer submitted by the eligible bidders is required to be considered on the basis of the stated terms and conditions. Thus, if the claim of the respondent was to be strictly adjudged on the basis of the terms and conditions specified in the subject tender document, the respondent has no case whatsoever.”

¶79

The Department of Industries, Energy and Labour has published the procurement policy vide Government Resolution dated 1^st December 2016 wherein there are various modes of purchase prescribed in clause 3.2. In addition to the modes of purchase prescribed in clause 3.2 of the policy, certain exceptions have been carved out for procurement from specific sectors. Clause 5.15 of the said policy makes reservations for the purchases to be made from the organizations for blind and disabled. The said clause is reproduced below:

¶80

10/12

¶81

3-WP-10318-2025 modifies..doc

¶82

Dixit

¶83

“Purchases to be made from the Organizations for Blind and Disabled The products manufactured by the Charitable Organizations of the Blind and Disabled are reserved (Appendix-18). Apart from these organizations, in future, if the organizations for the blind and disabled certified by the Department of Social Justice and those registered with Commissioner Charity, are proposed for reservations before Central Stores Purchase Organization, the reservation will be approved by the committee under the chairmanship of the Principal Secretary (Industries). Addl. Chief Secretary (Finance), Principal Secretary (Social Justice) and Development Commissioner (Industries) will be the members of this committee.

¶84

The rate fixation of the products manufactured by such organizations will be done by the Central Stores Purchase Organization. The said organizations should send the proposals for fixation of rates to Central Stores Purchase Organization before 31^st of March. The representatives of these organizations and officers of concerned administrative departments may be invited for meeting if necessary. The fixation of rate may be done by considering factors like average market price and production costs of the product. After the rate fixation, the Central Stores Purchase Organization should intimate the same to all the departments before 1^st May every year. The organizations which are incapable of supplying products should send the said list of products before 1^st March to Central Stores Purchase Organization. The production capacity for the reserved items of such organizations will be reviewed by the Central Stores Purchase Organization after every two years.”

¶85

In view of the aforesaid provisions in the procurement policy, we do not find any illegality in imposing a condition in the tender that the organizations like the petitioner-Society may be at liberty to execute the work under tender on the minimum rate received in the tender process. This stipulation clearly effectuates the benefit intended to be provided to the organizations like the petitionerSociety. This is not known whether any society or organization of the disabled persons has participated pursuant to the Tender Notices dated 6^th June 2025 and 28^th June 2025. The affidavit by the Industries Department that the concerned Procuring Department should follow the State Procurement Policy, 2016 and should not invite bids in breach thereof cannot be construed as if the impugned Tender Notices were illegal. No ground is made out to interfere with the Tender Notices which were for supply of school uniforms, night dresses and P.T. dresses to Government Ashram Schools and to the students of Eklavya Model Residential

¶86

11/12

¶87

3-WP-10318-2025 modifies..doc

¶88

Dixit

¶89

Schools of the Government of Maharashtra for the academic year 2025-26.

¶90

In view of the above, we decline to interfere in this matter and Writ Petition No.10318 of 2025 is dismissed. 18. At this stage, Mr. Anil Anturkar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-Society makes a prayer for continuance of the interim stay order dated 7^th October 2025. We have already indicated in this order that a challenge to the Tender Notices dated 6^th June 2025 and 28^th June 2025 shall not be entertainable at the instance of the petitioner-society. We have also noted in this order that the students of the Government Ashram Schools and Eklavya Model Residential Schools have been deprived of the school uniforms, night dresses and P.T. dresses etc. on account of the stay order dated 7^th October 2025. In view thereof, the prayer made for continuance of the said order dated 7^th October 2025 is declined. The bids invited by the Tribal Development Department, State of Maharashtra pursuant to the Tender Notices dated 6^th June 2025 and 28^th June 2025 shall be processed in accordance with law.

¶91

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶92

[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] [ CHIEF JUSTICE ]

¶93

Digitally signed by SNEHA SNEHAABHAY ABHAY DIXIT 3-WP-10318-2025 modifies..doc DIXIT Date:2026.03.11 14:22:59 +0530

¶94

12/12

¶95

Dixit

Jagdamba Mahila Readymade Dresses Vividh Utpadan Sahakari Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdamba Mahila Readymade Dresses Vividh Utpadan Sahakari Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S. Athani Farmers Sugar Factory Ltd. through Its Chairman and M. D. vs Union of India Thr.General Manager

Zabbar Asif Movar vs the District Magistrate and Ors.

Ashok Janrao and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Sec. Law and Judiciary Dept and Anr.

Rhythm Lounge through Proprietor Akshaya Kumar Shetty vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Janrao and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Sec. Law and Judiciary Dept and Anr.

Unaided Schools Forum C/O Gujrat Research Society and Ors. vs State Election Commissioner and Ors.