M S Enterprises, Nagpur Thr. Sole Proprietor, Mr. Manmit Singh Dheer vs Maha. State Po. Generation Co. Ltd., Koradi Thermal Po. Station, Thr. Chief Engineer (O and M) Ors.

______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶10

Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. K.S. Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶11

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATE : 10.02.2026

¶12

Heard.

¶13

In a tender process for procurement of hydraulic pumps for wagon trippler drive, the petitioner and respondent No.2 participated, and both were declared qualified in the technical bid. In the price bid, the petitioner was L2, whereas respondent No.2 was L1. The petitioner has challenged the same by filing the present writ petition on the ground that respondent No.2 is not eligible, as it does not fulfil the required qualifications under the tender conditions.

¶14

It is argued by Mrs. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that as per the conditions of the tender, more particularly Clause 2.1(a), the tenderer is required to provide satisfactory evidence demonstrating proven experience of design, manufacture, testing, and supply of similar material/equipment, which are in operation on the date of submission of the tender.

¶15

913.WP.119.2025

¶16

2/6

¶17

It is further submitted that a specific format was provided for this purpose under Section V of the tender document. According to the petitioner, the format was mandatory for bidders to fill in, sign, stamp, and upload along with their technical bids. The tender conditions clearly state that if the format is not duly filled and uploaded, the technical bids may not be considered for evaluation.

¶18

According to the petitioner, the format submitted by respondent No.2 is not in accordance with the requirement and thus makes it ineligible to participate in the tender process.

¶19

It is submitted that respondent No.2 is supplying a Parker-make hydraulic pump. However, in the format submitted by respondent No.2 under Section V, respondent No.2 has described itself as the manufacturer and has not provided the required technical specifications by stating “not applicable.” It is therefore submitted that it is not the compliance of the mandatory condition for submission of the make and technical specification as per Section V of the tender document.

¶20

It is further submitted that respondent No.2 is not the manufacturer, and since it has mentioned in the format under Section V that it is the manufacturer, it makes respondent No.2 disqualified. Accordingly, it is prayed for declaring respondent No.2 as ineligible and not qualified to participate in the abovereferred tender process.

¶21

913.WP.119.2025

¶22

3/6

¶23

On the other hand, Mr. Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for respondent No.1, submits that respondent No.2 has placed the necessary documents on record to show that it is a manufacturer, in compliance with Clause 2.1(a) of the general conditions of the tender. He further submits that, in view of the certificate issued by the National Small Industries Corporation Limited under the Central Government Store Purchase Programme for participation in the tender process, respondent No.2 is shown as a manufacturer of hydraulic pumps. He therefore submits that respondent No.2 fulfils the stipulated condition.

¶24

He further submits that Clause 2.1(a) requires the tenderer to have experience of design, manufacture, testing, and supply of hydraulic pumps or of similar material/equipment. It is submitted that even if it is considered that respondent No.2 is not the manufacturer of hydraulic pumps, it is undisputed that respondent No.2 manufactures hydraulic motors. According to respondent No.1, the experience of hydraulic motors is relevant to consider it as an experience of similar material/equipment as sought for. He therefore submits that respondent No.2 was rightly declared as L1.

¶25

Mr. Mohgaonkar, learned counsel, also draws attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.1, which states that the manufacturing of hydraulic motors is of a similar nature as of the manufacturing of hydraulic pumps. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner is not right in saying that

¶26

913.WP.119.2025

¶27

4/6

¶28

respondent No.2 does not fulfil the requirement stipulated under Clause 2.1(a) of the tender document.

¶29

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 reiterates the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respondent No.1 and submits that there is no misrepresentation, as alleged by the petitioner. He submits that there is a categorical statement in the affidavit asserting that respondent No.2 is a manufacturer of hydraulic pumps.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record, it is evident that Clause 2.1(a) stipulates experience of design, manufacture, testing, and supply of similar material/equipment. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a manufacturer, as can be seen from the information submitted by the petitioner in the format prescribed under Section V of the tender document. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, it has furnished the required information in the prescribed format under Section V, stating that it is a manufacturer. Though, the petitioner is disputing this fact, the documents on record, namely, the Government Purchase Enlistment Certificate and the Store Details Certificate issued by the National Small Industries Corporation Limited support the case of respondent No.1 and indicate that respondent No.2 is a manufacturer of hydraulic pumps.

¶31

Another condition is of having five years’ experience in supply. Respondent No.1 is not disputing that both the petitioner and respondent No.2 are having the said experience.

¶32

913.WP.119.2025

¶33

5/6

¶34

The affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.2 states that even if the petitioner’s case is accepted that respondent No.2 is not the manufacturer of hydraulic pumps, still respondent No.2 fulfils the conditions that it is the manufacturer of similar material/equipment. The affidavit further states that the petitioner is not disputing that the respondent No.2 is the manufacturer of hydraulic motor, and according to respondent No.1, it is the similar material/equipment.

¶35

We do not possess domain expertise in the filed to make any comment about the submissions made by the petitioner that hydraulic pump and hydraulic motor are two different things and that cannot be considered as similar material/equipment. Therefore, once respondent No.1 has certified and stated on affidavit that it is the similar material/equipment, we do not find any error committed by respondent No.1 in declaring respondent No.2 as eligible.

¶36

The petitioner is also not disputing that it is not a manufacturer of hydraulic pumps or similar material/equipment, but merely a supplier. In our opinion, the petitioner therefore does not fulfil the requirement of Clause 2.1(a), which mandates experience of design, manufacture, testing, and supply.

¶37

In that view of the matter, as we do not find any error committed by respondent No.1 in declaring respondent No.2 as L1, the petition is dismissed . No costs.

¶38

913.WP.119.2025

¶39

6/6

¶40

Needless to mention that interim order stands vacated.

¶41

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶42

Vijaykumar

¶43

Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 11/02/2026 19:54:17

M S Enterprises, Nagpur Thr. Sole Proprietor, Mr. Manmit Singh Dheer v. Maha. State Po. Generation Co. Ltd., Koradi Thermal Po. Station, Thr. Chief Engineer (O and M) Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Enterprises, Nagpur Thr. Sole Proprietor, Mr. Manmit Singh Dheer v. Maha. State Po. Generation Co. Ltd., Koradi Thermal Po. Station, Thr. Chief Engineer (O and M) Ors.

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

Raju Govinda Asutkar and Another vs Western Coalfields Limited (Wcl), the. Chairman and Managing Director, Nagpur and Anr.

Neha W/O Rajnesh Naidu (Joshi) vs Rajnesh S/O Rajendrapal Naidu

Rakesh S/O Anandrao Kutemate and Another vs the Ministry of Defence, Union of India, through Defence Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Ganesh S/O Ramchandra Lade vs the Collector, Akola and Others

Tulshiram Fakruji Bothale vs State of Maha., Thr.Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Jiwan S/O Hirasing Tekam and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Tribal Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.