Dismissed¶19

M/S Swastik Offset Printers through Proprietor v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC5 Jan 2026WP/29/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

E-tender rejection; technical bid rejected; turnover criterion minimum 60%; rounding off 59.96%; Sr. No. 17 tender condition; Chartered Accountant certificate UDIN; Government E-procurement portal; supply of writing material and stationery 2024-2025; Collector; Tender Inviting Authority communication dated 18.12.2025; MSME-registered GST sole proprietor; judicial review of tender evaluation limited scope; writ petition dismissed; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; 2026:BHC-AUG:59-DB; Writ Petition No. 29 of 2026; Coram Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.; decision dated 05 January 2026.

What did the court decide?

This Court has limited scope to consider matters wherein tenders are evaluated. ¶16

M/S Swastik Offset Printers through Proprietor vs the… — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:59-DB

¶2

40-WP-29-26.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

40 WRIT PETITION NO. 29 OF 2026

¶5

M/s Swastik Offset Printers Through Proprietor VERSUS

¶6

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

¶7

Mr. Mahesh V. Ghatge, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. S.B. Narwade, AGP for Respondents-State

¶8

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 05 JANUARY, 2026

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

The present petition has been filed challenging the communication dated 18.12.2025 issued by the Tender Inviting Authority, thereby rejecting the bid of the petitioner.

¶11

The petitioner is a sole proprietor duly registered under the Goods and Services Tax (2017) Act, and also registered under MSME with Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. The respondentCollector has invited e-tender for supply of writing material and other stationery for the year 2024-2025 through Government E-procurement portal. The petitioner has submitted his bid online within the prescribed time and all the necessary documents. However, his technical bid came to be rejected on the ground that certificate of the Auditor for the last three years was not uploaded along with bid as reflected in the

¶12

40-WP-29-26.odt

¶13

{2}

¶14

technical evaluation sheet communicated subsequently by e-mail. The petitioner had pointed out that the certificate is uploaded and informed that his turnover is not 60%. He tired to explain that it is 59.96%. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the said bid ought to have been considered by rounding it off, and that respondent No. 2- Collector ought not to have rejected the same by adopting a rigid approach.

¶15

Learned AGP waives service of notice for the respondents and submits that the petitioner was having knowledge of each and every term and since he is not fulfilling the said criteria, his bid has been rightly rejected.

¶16

The first and foremost fact i.e. required to be mentioned her that this Court has limited scope to consider the matter wherein the tenders are evaluated. When the tender document was floated, there was a specific condition at Sr. No.17 stating that last three years average financial transactions or turnover should be minimum 60% of the proposed tender amount and it should e certified by Chartered Accountant with UDIN number. Now, taking into consideration the evaluation sheet of the Committee who evaluated the tender documents of all the bidders, it appears that two bidders have been declared ineligible.

¶17

40-WP-29-26.odt

¶18

{3}

¶19

As regards the present petitioner is concerned, the aforesaid is the fact, and according to the petitioner itself, the said percentage comes to 59.96. If the petitioner does not fulfill the said criteria, the rejection is appropriate. It cannot be said to be a rigid approach of the Collector to reject the same. We do not find any merit in the present petition. Hence, the writ petition stands rejected.

¶20

[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶21

S P Rane

M/S Swastik Offset Printers through Proprietor v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Swastik Offset Printers through Proprietor v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ulhas Balasaheb Nikalje vs the Union of India through the Secretary and Others

Onkar Kalyan Rajdev and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shreyas Shripadrao Deshpande vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Another

Krushi Va Gramin Vikas Pratishthans through the Principal vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Arti Pandurang Jathar vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Jitendra Nandlal Changlani vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others