SUPERCOATS INDUSTRIES; GROUP 7 GUARDS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED; JAL SURAKSHA DAL Vs. STATE OF GOA; DIRECTOR OF TOURISM, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, GOVERNMENT OF GOA; DRISHTI SPECIAL RESPONSE SERVICES PVT LTD ; DRISHTI ADVENTURE SPORTS PVT LTD ; TRADE WINGS PVT LTD ; BVG INDIA LIMITED; HAAST PRECISION PVT LTD ; SURF LIFE SAVING SERVICES PVT LT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Nitin Thakker, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent nos. 3 to 5 and Shri Supekar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent no. 6.

(2.) The above Writ Petition, inter alia, seeks to quash and set aside the Order dated 10.06.2014 passed by the Respondent no. 2 thereby awarding the tender in favour of the Respondent no. 2.

(3.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Respondent no. 2 floated a tender for providing life guarding and water safety services in the State of Goa pursuant to which different bidders including the consortium of the Respondents which included the Respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 the Respondent no. 6 and the Petitioners submitted their bids. Thereafter, the Respondent no. 2 informed that the Respondent no. 3 was the lowest bidder. The Petitioners thereafter learnt that material facts were suppressed by the Respondent no. 3-Consortium by resorting to blatant falsehood and misrepresentation with malafide intentions. As such, the Petitioners addressed a letter dated 02.02.2014 to the Chief Minister of the State disclosing the illegal and fraudulent conduct by the Respondent no. 3 which was forwarded to the said Respondent. The Respondent no. 3 on their part filed their reply disputing all the contents alleged by the Petitioners. Thereafter, the Petitioner no. 1 sought time to analyse the reply filed by the Respondent no. 3. The Petitioners thereafter brought to the notice, the misrepresentation made by the Respondent no.2 in such reply and the suppressions made therein. It was the contentions of the Petitioners that the Respondent no. 4 had encroached on the Government land in CRZ Zone to the extent of 826 square metres and that action was taken against the Respondent no. 3 for blatant violation of CRZ Regulations; it was also the contention of the Petitioners that an amount of Rs. 1,01,80,699/- was due to be paid to MTDC by the Respondent no. 4 and that a false statement was made in the tender application that no dues were pending by the Respondent no. 3; it was also their contention that employees of the Respondent no. 4 were arrested on 08.05.2008 and illegal liquor worth of Rs.1,74,052/- was seized and a criminal case was filed against them; it was also their contention that Mumbai Port Trust had imposed a fine of Rs.44,47,000/- on the Respondent no. 4 on account of the violation on the part of the Respondent no. 4. Whilst making such disclosures, the Petitioners called upon the Respondent no. 2 to take cognizance of the said allegations and take necessary action against Respondent no. 3. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for hearing by the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 who filed a reply highlighting the correct facts whilst disputing the allegations made by the Petitioners. The Respondent no. 3 informed that they were not interested in submitting anything else apart from the reply which was already filed but, however, the representative of the Petitioners noticed on the High Court site that the Respondent no. 3 had filed a Writ Petition before this Court bearing Stamp No. 1254 of 2014. The Petitioners thereafter filed an intervention application before this Court bearing application no. 417 of 2014 and also filed written submissions before the Respondent no. 2. By Order dated 10.06.2014, the Respondent no. 2 rejected the request representation of the Petitioners consortium to disqualify the Respondent no. 3. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioners have filed the present Petition.