VENKATESH TRADING CO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 16/8/2010 passed by the Minster, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya - Mumbai thereby setting aside the award of the contract to the petitioner by the respondent no.3 - Additional Collector, Nagpur directing that the price bids of respondent nos.5 and 6 be opened consequent to the letter dated 17/8/2010 issued by the respondent no.3 directing that the price bid envelopes of the respondent nos.5 and 6 will be opened on 21/8/2010 at 12 '0 clock sharp.

(3.) The facts, in brief, are as follows The respondent no.3 - Additional Collector, Nagpur floated a tender for transportation of sugar from sugar factories to the Government godowns or to persons known as nominees. The contract was to be for a period of three years from 1/6/2010 to 31/5/2013. On 30th of June 2010, the petitioner alone was adjudged to have qualified for the technical bid. The other three tenderers were found to have been disqualified. The Additional Collector, therefore, exercised the powers conferred on him by the Government Resolution dated 2nd of June 2010 and issued a notification dated 1st of July 2010 stating that in order to extend the time by a period of 15 days a retender is ordered i.e. tenders are invited again. This was done in purported exercise of a clause 2.2.E in the Government Resolution dated 2/6/2010 which reads as follows " E) After opening the "technical" envelope of bid, if less than 3 valid bids are received, then instead of opening envelope of "transport rate", due to poor response, (instead of retendering) first 15 days extension of time be given to tenders. If 3 valid bids are not received even after that, then again for second time, 15 days extension of time be given and even thereafter if less than 3 valid bids are received, the officer opening the bids i.e. Additional Collector should open the "Transport rate" envelope before his superior officer (Collector) and obtain signature of the senior officer on the same." In pursuance thereof, five more tenders were received, out of these two were disqualified as not complied with the technical formalities. Thus there were four tenders in fray i.e. the petitioner 's and the three tenders which were received latter. On evaluation of these four tenders, the contract was awarded to the petitioner.