SHIVSAKSHI DEVELOPERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. At the joint request of the parties the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner is challenging the decision of the respondent No. 2 who is the District Water Conservation Officer, Soil and Water Conservation Division, Collector Office Latur, rejecting his technical bid for the construction of Babhalgaon Percolation Canal for which tender was floated on 13/4/2023 for which the petitioner had submitted his offer.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Venjane for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's offer was compliant in all respects. There were no deficiencies. So far as the stipulation regarding completion of similar type of work also the petitioner had tendered a certificate issued by the Municipal Engineer of Udgir Municipal Council dtd. 8/5/2023. However, the respondent No. 2 by his communication dtd. 19/5/2023 again demanded certificate regarding similar type of work and directed the petitioner to submit it by 22/5/2023 till 6 p.m. Accordingly, the petitioner responded by sending mail on 22/5/2023 at 5.56 p.m. and forwarded two more certificates, one issued by the respondent No. 2 himself in respect of the construction of Pimpria CNB No. 1 and 2 Tq. Latur and one issued by the Executive Engineer of Zilla Parishad (W) Division Latur. Mr. Venjane would submit that in spite of such compliance, the respondent No. 2 has illegally rejected the technical bid on the ground that there was no certificate regarding similar type of work done by him. He submits that no explanation was called from the petitioner and the decision was taken behind his back. The petitioner is capable of performing the work and still his offer has been turned down illegally and instead has found the respondent No. 3 to be eligible.