SAMAR STEEL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had filled in the tender pursuant to the tender notice issued by the respondents. The technical bids of the petitioner are rejected. Subsequently, the work orders are issued in favour of the respondents. The petitioner has assailed rejection of its technical bids, so also has challenged the tender process.

(2.) The respondent No. 6 issued six different tender notices viz. 26 to 31 of 2020-2021 for supply of modular furniture. The tender enumerates various terms and conditions. Subsequently, three corrigendums are issued. As per corrigendum No. 3 the bidders were directed to submit four different sample furnitures as per tender specifications. The technical bids of the petitioner are rejected on the ground that the sample does not pass the test.

(3.) Mr. Palodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the samples of the petitioner are rejected by the respondent No. 7 on the ground that, they do not pass the test of tolerance. The test of tolerance was not a part of the tender condition, nor any of the corrigendum issued. It was only by a note submitted by the respondent No. 6 to respondent No. 7 that the respondent No. 7 shall also check the tolerance, the samples of the petitioner are rejected. Upon re-testing the objection of bracket is done away with. The sole ground for rejection of sample i.e. not possessing the test of tolerance was beyond the terms of the contract and not sustainable.