KRUSHNA KUMAR GOKULCHAND Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

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. 30/9/2021 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 2021 to 2024. 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 9/8/2021 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 16/8/2021. The petitioner on 15/8/2021 removed those deficiencies by furnishing various documents in that regard. After scrutiny the petitioner was informed on 30/9/2021 that it was not qualified to participate in the tender process for two reasons. It was stated that the requisite experience of work as prescribed in the tender notice was not satisfied and secondly the details furnished with regard to ownership of vehicles and those taken on lease for operation were insufficient and did not meet the prescribed requirements. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid communication.

(3.) Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no. 1 was not justified in concluding that the petitioner was not qualified to participate in the tender process for the reasons assigned in the impugned communication. Referring to various clauses of the request for proposal dtd. 21/5/2021 as well as the Government Resolution dtd. 15/1/2021 alongwith its Corrigendum dtd. 3/6/2021 it was contended that the petitioner was duly qualified to participate in the tender process and all necessary requirements were satisfied by it. Referring to Clauses 5.1 and 5.2 of the Government Resolution dtd. 15/1/2021 it was submitted that as prescribed in Clause 5.1 a bidder was required to have experience of transportation of food-grains in the preceding five financial years out of which such experience for one year should be with regard to work done under any Government/Semi Government contract. Such requisite experience was required in the concerned district for which the tender was invited and such experience was to be atleast 33% Metric Tonnes of the work of transportation in that district for the preceding three years. Such experience ought to be in the name of the bidder. As per Cause 5.2 a certificate of the Competent Authority was necessary to indicate such experience. As per the Corrigendum dtd. 3/6/2021 submission of audited financial statements for the previous five financial years from 2015-16 to 2019-20 were necessary. The same was also stipulated in Clauses QC5 and QC6 of the request for proposal document. Inviting attention to the District-Sheet pertaining to Buldana District it was submitted that as per Item 8 thereof in the last three financial years total transportation was 424800 Metric Tonnes. As per the Experience Certificate issued by the District Supply Officer Buldana dtd. 11/6/2021 for the period from April-2015 to March-2016 the food-grains transported were 12,46,403 Quintals or 124640 Metric Tonnes. For the period from April-2016 to 22/9/2016 the food-grains transported were 7,63,030 Quintals or 76303 Metric Tonnes. When these two figures were considered together it was clear that the petitioner had experience of transporting 33% Metric Tonnes as required as the total experience gained by a bidder could be taken into consideration in that regard. It was submitted that on a proper and complete reading of Clause 5.1 it was clear that the petitioner had requisite transportation experience as stipulated by the said clause. It was then submitted that in case of any discrepancy between the District-Sheet and the Government Resolution dtd. 15/1/2021 the terms mentioned in the Government Resolution would prevail and not the matter stipulated in the District-Sheet. That District-Sheet could not be read in a manner contrary to the Government Resolution. For said purpose reliance was placed on the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No. 9279 of 2021 decided on 13/10/2021 [M/s. Shalimar Transport and Carting Contractor Versus The Government of Maharashtra and Others].