SHARAD KESHAO GHONGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner had submitted his tender pursuant to tender notice dated 7th March, 2005. One other tenderer was respondent No. 5, who had applied as proprietor of Samsal Telecom. One of the conditions of the tender was Clause 3 (v) , which reads as under :-"3 (v) Contractor/company should submit a certificate of registration from competent authority. Contractor/company should submit necessary documents/certificates satisfying above conditions duly attested by the gazetted officer at the time of purchasing of tender. No tender will be issued otherwise. "the tender booklet under the head instructions for the tenderer under item No. 6 provided as under :- "6. Dealer Possession Licence :- Tender should have a valid dealer possession License (DPL) for minimum of 100 sets. "

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that he has been doing the work of maintenance which is the subject matter of the present tender since June, 2001 for the respondent authorities. He has manufactured equipments and supplied them to MELTRON which have been installed by the respondent authorities. The present tender has been invited for maintenance of those equipments. The petitioner was entrusted initially the work for a period of one year and thereafter by communication dated 16th July, 2002, 15th July, 2003 and 23rd December, 2003 the period of work was extended upto 3rd March, 2004. Similarly, he was given work for Chandrapur Division for one quarter and for Buldana Division the work for maintenance from 1st April, 2005 to 31st June, 2005 (30th June, 2005). The respondents had invited tender on 21st July, 2004 for the work of annual maintenance and repairs to Wireless Set equipments. Amongst the tender conditions there was a clause which required submission of a certificate of registration from Competent Authority. In the instructions given for the tenderers, a requirement was placed that the tenderer should have a valid Dealer possession License (D. P. L. ). The petitioner by representation of 31st August, 2004 brought to the notice of the Chief Engineer that the work of maintenance requires a licence under the Indian Telegraph Act which permits the establishment, maintenance and work issued by the Wireless Advisor to the government of India and is issued only to a technically sound person. The petitioner is in possession of the said license which was renewed upto June, 2005. The license authorised him to maintain all equipments essential for wireless apparatus, etc. On the contrary the DPL license only permits the possession of equipment and it does not empower the person concerned to operate the wireless equipments. The petitioner had also represented against the action of the respondent authorities in refusing to open the price bid of the petitioner on 31st August, 2004 in respect of the tender issued in July, 2004. After the representation, the petitioner received no communication till 3rd March, 2005 when the petitioner was informed that the tender itself issued on 5th July, 2004 had been cancelled. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is obvious that it was so done as the petitioner's representation in respect of the validity of the license had been accepted by the respondent authorities and the tender came to be cancelled.