Jafar Khan S/O Ziya Khan Pathan vs Administrator Cum Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Chikhaldara, Amravati and Ors.

¶1

1 WP-3925-2025.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3925 OF 2025

¶4

[Jafar Khan S/o Ziya Khan Pathan Vs. Administrator cum Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Chikhaldara and others)

¶5

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

¶6

Shri S.S. Sohoni, Counsel for Petitioner. Shri Pravin P. Deshmukh, Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶7

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

¶8

: 1 st APRIL, 2026 .

¶9

D ATE

¶10

In the present petition, a challenge is raised to the rejection of the

¶11

technical bid of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to submit the turnover certificate.

¶12

The facts of the present case are as under :

¶13

The respondent No.1 issued e-tender notice dated 22^nd April, 2025 under the District Annual Scheme (Nagarothan) for the year 2024-2025, for in all nine works listed in the said tender notice. The duration of the work was three to six months.

¶14

The petitioner participated in the tender and was declared as disqualified on 23^rd July, 2025, by putting the tender status on online portal.

¶15

From the summary report in the column of ‘turnover certificate’, there is a remark of “not submitted by the petitioner”, which gave a reason

¶16

2 WP-3925-2025.odt

¶17

to the respondents to declare the petitioner as disqualified. Such disqualification is under challenge in this petition.

¶18

Shri Sohoni, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that, as per the terms and conditions of the tender, the respondents ought to have granted time to rectify the mistake and allow the petitioner to submit the turnover document. Since such opportunity was not granted to the petitioner, it is evident that the respondents acted arbitrarily and unreasonably.

¶19

Shri Sohoni further submits that, by way of rejoinder, it is brought on record that, the details of financial bids have not yet been uploaded. Therefore, the respondent-authorities have committed irregularities and for this reason, they are liable to be punished by taking necessary action.

¶20

Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3- tendering authorities, opposed the petition and submits that the opportunity as the petitioner is referring to, to correct the mistake is not the provision for allowing the bidder to file the documents. The petitioner failed to submit required bid document, despite it being a mandatory condition to submit the tender document.

¶21

He submits that Clause No.4.5.2 of the Government Resolution dated 27^th September, 2018 (Annexure-9), relates to seeking clarification in case of any doubt, from the bidder by the authorities. He submits that

¶22

3 WP-3925-2025.odt

¶23

the said Clause nowhere states that if any document is not filed, which is mandatory to file along with the tender document, the opportunity should be granted to file such document and remove the defects in the tender form. He thus submits that the petitioner has misinterpreted the said Clause.

¶24

Shri Deshmukh submits that some of the works, out of total nine works allotted to the successful bidder, will be completed in next fifteen to twenty days and, therefore, at this stage, this Court may not interfere in the works allotted to the successful bidder.

¶25

In light of rival submissions, we have perused the record. It is an admitted position that the petitioner did not submit the turnover certificate, though it was the requirement as per the tender document. It is the case of the petitioner that the document, i.e., the turnover certificate, was with the petitioner, which is dated 17^th January, 2025, but inadvertently it was not submitted.

¶26

Admittedly further, the petitioner approached this Court after nine days of the declaration of his disqualification. There is not a single correspondence made by the petitioner in these nine days with the respondents informing that, the petitioner possesses such certificate. Therefore, at the first instance, it creates a doubt about the date of certificate as 17^th January, 2025. However, basing this judgment on this ground to hold against the petitioner, we will consider it on merit.

¶27

4 WP-3925-2025.odt

¶28

After plain reading of Clause 4.5.2, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has misinterpreted it, which is reproduced in vernacular as under :

¶29

"४.५.२ नि�नि�दा पडताळणी सनि�ती�े नि�नि�दा उघडल्या�ंतर त्यां�ी नि�नि�देची छा��ी करु� यासाठी नि�नि�देच्या पात्रत/े अपात्रतनि�षयी काही शे का नि��ां ण झाल्यास% , नि�शषते ः . खालील बाबीं�र त्या�ी कत्राटदारां कडू� स्पष्टीकरण �ागनि�णं अनि��ाये राहील%

¶30

(१) �ोंदणी नि�षयक कागदपत्रे

¶31

(२)पॉ�र ऑफ अ W ट�6बाबतची स्पष्टीकरणे

¶32

(३) बंक प्रतीभूती ह�ी �धील त्रुटीै

¶33

(४) कंत्राटदारा�े सादर केलेल्या तांनित्रक � आर्थि?क नि��रणात संनिदग्धता � त्रुटी आढळत असल्यास त्याबाबत स्पष्टीकरण

¶34

(५) पुलाची लांबी � नि�नि�दBश, स�ा� का�े, इ�ारतींची उंची � का�ाचे गुण�त्ता नि�कष, रस्ते बांधका�ातील का�ांचे/बाबींचे परिर�ाण � शुल्क

¶35

(६) जॉइंट व्हेंचर (Joint Venture) असल्यास त्यासंबंधी करार�ाम्यात त्रुटी असण,े प्र�ाणिणत �सण, े करार�ा�ा �ोंदनि�लला �सणे , े भागीदाराच शेअर ��ूद �सणेे

¶36

(7) आर्थि?क ताळेबंद � नि��रणातील त्रुटीबाबतचे स्पष्टीकरण

¶37

( 8 ) तांनित्रक लिलफाफ्यातील सादर कले ले प्रस्ता�े /कागदपत्रातील अटी /शत6 � पत्र व्य�हारातील सनिदं ग्धता, अस्पष्टता इत्यानिद.

¶38

याबाबत नि�नि�दा उघडणा&;k सक्ष� अधिधका&;kuh (काय%कारी अणिभयंता/अधीक्षक अणिभयंता) संबंधीत कंत्राटदारास पात्र/अपात्र ठरनि�ण्यापू�6 त्यांचेबरोबर लिललिखत स्�रुपात पत्रव्य�हार करा�ा � कंत्राटदाराकडू� लिललिखत स्�रुपात स्पष्टीकरण घेऊ� ते पडताळा�े. निकरकोळ � �हत्� �सलल्या अटी�ुळे नि�नि�दाकरासे अपात्र करण्यात यऊ �ये .े अशा निठकाणी कंत्राटदाराकडू� लखी स्पष्टीकरण घ्या�े �े अटी�ुसार दुरुस्त कागदपत्र प्राप्त करु� सनि�तीस�ोरे ठे�ू� त्याची छा��ी करु� कंत्राटदाराच्या नि�नि�दा पात्रता/अपात्रतनि�षयी नि�ण%य घ्या�ाे . याबाबतचे स�% अणिभलेख धारिरकेत � संकेत स्?ळा�र ठे�ा�े � नि�नि�दा स्विस्�कृतीसाठी सादर करण्याच्या प्रस्ता�ात या स�% पडताळणी पध्दतीचा स्पष्ट उल्लेख करा�ा.

¶39

ब&;kचदा एक नि�नि�दा उघडण्या�ेळी पात्र असलेल्या कंत्राटदार दुस&;k नि�नि�दा�ेळी सुध्दा अपात्र ठरनि�ण्यात येते. यात कदाधिचत कंत्राटदाराचे संग��त (CARTEL FORMATION) होण्याची शक्यता �ाकारता येत �ाही. यास्त� ज्यां�ी देशात / राज्यात अ?�ा सा.बां. नि�भागात सक्ष�पणे का�ाच्या स्�रुपा�ुसार जसे की, इ�ारतीच्या का�ासाठी इ�ारतीचे स�तुल्य का�, पुलाच्या का�ासाठी पुलाचे स�तुल्य

¶40

5 WP-3925-2025.odt

¶41

का� इत्यादी केले आहे अशा कंत्राटदारास नि�नि�दा निकरकोळ कारणास्त� (जसे की, PTC, Machinery, आयकर कागदपत्रे, Similar work condition इ.) अपात्र करु �येत. अश्या कंत्राटदारां�ी त्यांची पु�6ची कागदपत्रे उपलब्ध केल्यास ती पडताळू� पात्र ठरनि�ण्याबाबत कळ�ा�े � आर्थि?क लिलफाफा क्र.२ उघडा�ा.”

¶42

The reading of the above-referred Clause does not suggest that the bidder should be permitted to remove the defects by filing the documents, which are mandatory to be the part of technical bid and failed to file along with the tender form.

¶43

The reading of this Clause suggests that, if the respondentauthorities are having any doubt about the qualification or disqualification of any bidder, and if any clarification in respect of points (1) to (8) as enumerated in it is needed, an opportunity should be granted to the bidder to make the things clear in writing.

¶44

However, this does not mean that allows it the bidder to file the documents or information not furnished along with the tender form, despite as mandatory and necessary condition to file it along with the bid document. If that is permitted, there is every possibility that the documents, which were not available or in possession of the bidder on the date of the submission of the tender, would be obtained subsequently and to submit the same subsequent to the last date of submission of tender document for being qualified.

¶45

6 WP-3925-2025.odt

¶46

The documents, which are to be filed along with the tender form as

¶47

a mandatory condition, non-compliance of it shall result in consequences like disqualification.

¶48

In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to hold that the authorities have acted arbitrarily or illegally in declaring the petitioner as disqualified.

¶49

As far as the grievance of the petitioner, the financial bids were not uploaded on the website, is concerned, the respondent No.1 shall look into the said grievance and take necessary action in the matter, if there is any substance in the allegation of the petitioner.

¶50

In view of above, as there is no merit in the petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

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

¶52

LANJEWAR

Jafar Khan S/O Ziya Khan Pathan v. Administrator Cum Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Chikhaldara, Amravati and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jafar Khan S/O Ziya Khan Pathan v. Administrator Cum Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Chikhaldara, Amravati and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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.