LAWS(BOM)-2022-1-214

TIRATH SINGH BHATIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On January 20, 2022
Tirath Singh Bhatia Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of notice of final disposal, issued earlier, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties by issuing RULE and making it returnable forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dtd. 12/8/2021 by which it has been disqualified as being ineligible for further participation in the tender process initiated by the respondent no. 1. On 19/5/2021 the respondent no. 1 issued a tender notice in the matter of transport of food-grains for public distribution for a period of three years. The request for proposal for appointment of transporters to transport food-grains and other essentials to Fair Price Shops was issued on 21/5/2021. As per the schedule, interested bidders were required to submit their documents by 5.30 p.m. on 11/6/2021. The work in question was to be undertaken in accordance with the Government Resolution dtd. 15/1/2021 which laid down various guidelines in that regard. After scrutiny of the bids, on 30/7/2021 the respondent no. 1 called upon the petitioner to remove certain defects that were found in the documents furnished by the petitioner. The same was to be done by 6/8/2021. The petitioner on 6/8/2021 removed those deficiencies by furnishing various documents in that regard. After scrutiny the petitioner was informed on 12/8/2021 that it was not qualified to participate in the tender process for the reason that the requisite experience of work as prescribed in the tender notice was not satisfied by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid communication.

(3.) Shri R.S. Parsodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent no. 1 despite the fact that the petitioner duly satisfied the requirements of Clauses QC 6 and QC 9 of the Tender Document as well as the requirement prescribed by Clauses 5.1 and 5.2 of Government Resolution dtd. 15/1/2021. Referring to the judgment dtd. 28/6/2021 in Writ Petition No. 750 of 2021 [Prithviraj Enterprises Versus State of Maharashtra and Another] as well as the clarification issued by the State Government that was considered therein, it was submitted that a tenderer having experience of transportation of the first phase of Clause QC 9 was sufficient and it was not necessary to have experience of the second phase as stipulated. Inviting attention to the District-Sheet pertaining to Gondia district it was submitted that as per Clauses 11 and 11.1 thereof, the requisite experience in transportation of food-grains as required was 70793 Metric Tonnes for each phase. As per the experience certificates issued by the Competent Authority dtd. 15/4/2021 and 20/4/2021, it was clear that the petitioner had sufficient experience which exceeded the minimum experience prescribed in the request for proposal document as well as the District-Sheet. Despite submitting these experience certificates the respondent no. 1 on 30/7/2021 issued a communication seeking to point out certain defects in the bid submitted by the petitioner. One of the queries made was that the transportation undertaken with regard to the second phase was on a lower side and a clarification in that regard was sought. The petitioner on 6/8/2021 clearly stated that as per the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 750 of 2021 it was sufficient to have experience of the first phase in the matter of transportation. Despite that the respondent no. 1 in an illegal and arbitrary manner proceeded to reject the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground that the experience in transportation as required in the district was insufficient insofar as the petitioner was concerned. He submitted that though the State Government had clarified that the requisite experience gained from the transportation of the food-grains in the first phase was sufficient, the respondent no. 1 had taken into consideration the experience required for both the phases. This was clearly contrary to the clarification given by the State Government and hence it was clear that the technical bid of the petitioner was illegally disqualified. Inviting attention to the judgment of the Division Bench in Shri Vyankatesh Trading Company Versus Food Corporation of India and Another [(2016) 5 BCR 717], it was submitted that illegal rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was not sustainable in law. The learned counsel further submitted that though by passing an ad-interim order on 14/10/2021 making the work order if issued subject to further orders in the writ petition, the respondent no. 1 illegally proceeded to issue the work order in favour of respondent no. 2 on 24/12/2021. By amending the writ petition, it was submitted that said work order was also under challenge. Thus it was urged that the impugned order dtd. 12/8/2021 having been passed in a manner contrary to the Government Resolution dtd. 15/1/2021 as well as the request for proposal the same was liable to be set aside. Consequentially, the work order issued to the respondent no. 2 would not survive. Since the financial bid of the petitioner was much lower in comparison to the financial bid of the respondent no. 2 which came to be accepted, it was urged that the petitioner was entitled to be granted the said work order. It was thus prayed that the reliefs as prayed for be granted to the petitioner.