MAHAINFORMATICS PVT.LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raises a challenge to the e-tender notice, dtd. 23/6/2022, issued by respondent No. 2 Municipal Corporation, Parbhani bearing No. WS/Establish/369/2022 and the consequential work order dtd. 24/8/2022 issued in favour of respondent No. 2. The petitioner contends that it is a private limited Company, registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the business of providing skilled, semi skilled and un-skilled manpower to the various establishments of the Government, as well as the infrastructure projects. Respondent No. 2, the Municipal Corporation floated a e-tender notice dtd. 23/6/2022, inviting bids from the qualified contractors for the supply of manpower. On 4/7/2022 petitioner responded to the e-tender notice and submitted his bid, through online process, which has been duly acknowledged. According to the petitioner, in all six bids were received in response to the e-tender. On technical evaluation, the petitioner was found to be eligible, however, the bid of respondent No. 3, Mahatma Phule Multi Services came to be accepted. Although the rate floated by respondent No. 3 was similar to that of the petitioner. The petitioner has been wrongly excluded. The petitioner further contends that on technical evaluation out of six successful bidders, as many as five bidders were found to have equated same rates, therefore, further evaluation was done by giving marks as indicated in annexure-B to the e-tender notice. Respondent No. 3 is shown to have obtained highest marks i.e. 80, whereas, the petitioner is shown to have obtained 75 marks. The evaluation sheet shows that the petitioner is allotted '0' (zero) mark in the column "Net Worth", although petitioner had submitted requisite documents depicting his net worth above rupees one crore, which could have fetched five marks to his credit.

(2.) Per-contra, it is the contention of the respondent that the e-tender notice provides for mechanism for selection of the bid in case the equal rates of bid. The criteria is laid down for determination of marks based on previous experience, the execution of the similar work, availability of C.A. report of audit and balance-sheet, the experience of working with Government agencies, the place of the head office of the bidder and "Net Worth". Respondent No. 3 secured highest marks amongst the bidders and accordingly declared successful bidder.

(3.) Mr.Kale, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 2 being the public authority, ought to have carried the tender process in fair and transparent manner. Although the financial bid of the petitioner is comparable to a successful bidder, he has been wrongly assessed while applying the marking system. The petitioner had submitted documents showing his "Net Worth" above rupees one crore, hence at least five marks ought to have been allocated to him under that head. The assessment sheet depicts the allotment of "0" mark to Petitioner in the column of "Net Worth". Mr.Kale, would submit that, had the proper allotment of marks made the petitioner would have secured with 80 marks to equate with respondent No.3. As such, the petitioner has been wrongly excluded.