SHAMMANGALDAS MANWANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE arbitrary and unfair refusal to issue blank tender form to the petitioner has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court with this petition. The petitioner is a registered contractor in Class-II under the Government of Maharashtra, Public Works Department. He is the sole proprietor of the proprietary concern by name M/s Shama Construction Company and is in the business of construction work for the last more than 15 years, having to his credit the execution of the work to the tune of crores of rupees under various Departments of the State Governments as well as the Central Government. A tender notice came to be published on 28-2-2004 in a daily newspaper "lokmat" (Marathi) bearing tender notice No. B1/3/2003-2004 for the construction of Varthan Storage Tank at Soygaon in the District of Aurangabad and the period for sale of the tender forms was disclosed to be from 3-3-2004 to 2-4-2004. Initially when the petitioner approached the authorities to collect the tender form, he was informed to contact after 10 days on the ground that the forms were not available. On 18-3-2004 the petitioner submitted an application for issuance of the blank tender form. However, the respondent No. 3 refused to issue the blank tender form on the ground that the petitioner was not qualified to submit the tender. The petitioner was orally informed that the reason for non-issuance of the blank tender form was that the petitioner had not submitted the pre-qualification form within the stipulated period.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the tender form is being refused to be issued to the petitioner not on account of the conditions disclosed in the tender notice and that, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to refuse the tender form to the petitioner. It is his further case that the respondents in collusion with some of the bidders and for extraneous reasons have refused to issue the blank tender form to the petitioner in an arbitrary and illegal manner. It is his further case that in the absence of the proposal for pre-qualification being made a condition precedent for issuance of the tender form and the same was made known in the tender notice, the respondents could not have refused the issuance of the tender form to the petitioner on the said ground.