H.P.GHUMARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks review of the judgment and order dtd. 16/2/2023 by which the writ petition is rejected. Petitioner had challenged rejection of its bid as being ineligible. The main contention of petitioner in the writ petition was that its cumulative work experience in past three years ought to have been taken into consideration in terms of para 5.1 of the Government Resolution dtd. 15/1/2021. This Court negated the contention and upheld State Government's contention that bidders needed to possess the prescribed work experience and turnover in any one of the 5 years.

(2.) Petitioner assailed the judgment under review before the Supreme Court by filing Petition for Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4010 of 2023. When the SLP came up for hearing on 3/3/2023, Petitioner withdrew the same. After the dismissal of the SLP as withdrawn, petitioner has filed the present petition seeking review of the judgment and order dtd. 16/2/2023.

(3.) The main point canvassed by Ms. Talekar, the learned counsel appearing for petitioner, is that the cumulative reading of Condition No. QC-5 together with paragraphs 5.1 and 5.3 of the Government Resolution dtd. 15/1/2021 would demonstrate that cumulative work experience and turnover of five years is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of eligibility of bidders in accordance with the district-sheet published along with the tender. She however fairly admits that attention of this Court was not invited to condition QC-5 during the course of hearing of the Petition. According to her, since the issue goes to the root of the matter, this court may permit her to raise the argument based on condition QC-5 for the first time in review. She would further submit that various documents and data that was supposed to be submitted along with the bid would further make it explicitly clear that cumulative figures of work experience and turnover of 5 years are required to be considered for determining eligibility.