PADGILWAR AGRO INDUSTRIES Vs. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF SERICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a writ to set aside acceptance of bid of respondent no.3 by the respondent nos.1 and 2 on the ground that said respondent no.3 does not fulfill essential conditions of the tender invitation with further prayer to direct respondent nos. 1 and 2 to issue work order to the petitioner. The Etenders were invited for Engine oriented Mulberry Pruner/ shoot/Brush cutting machine. On 13,02.2015, while issuing notice to the respondents, this Court prohibited issuance of work order. Matter has been heard finally on 27.03.2015, and considering the fact that the pruners are meant for farmers and approaching financial year end, we have passed suitable interim orders to see that the grants do not lapse.

(2.) Considering the nature of controversy and with consent of all the parties, we have heard the matter finally by issuing "Rule" and making it returnable forthwith. We have heard Shri R.S. Parsodkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. B.H. Dangre, learned Government Pleader for Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri A.V. Muley, learned Counsel for the Respondent no.3.

(3.) Shri Parsodkar, has urged that the sample of pruner was to be submitted to Directorate of Sericulture on 04.02.2015 with commercial test report of the Central Government or recognized institute, any agriculture University of India or State Government Recognized Institute. Petitioner complied with this mandatory condition while respondent No. 3 did not have such test report. It only submitted a physical report dated 28.01.2015 of Manufacturer and a practical field test report dated 24.01.2011 of Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi. The later report is also not a commercial test report but, it is more on the trial on land and not on performance or working of machine under all parameters. The report dated 28.01.2015 only points out the length, speed in RPM and maximum sound power level. Petitioner gave the requisite report as per clause 7 of the AnnexureA i.e., technical bid. As respondent No.3 could not comply with this mandatory term, petitioner raised an objection on 06.02.2015, but, that has not been looked into and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have attempted to fabricate its receipt on 11.02.2015. Date 06.02.2015, put on it by petitioner has been scored off and inward entry is alleged to be made on 13.02.2015. Attention is also invited to commercial test report submitted by the petitioner to point out how various parameters are required to be applied. Appreciation of those details by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as seen in para 10 of reply affidavit of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is also pressed into service with the contention that such an application of mind, qua the pruner of respondent No.3 is not possible in absence of relevant data. It is stated that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have found pruner of petitioner technically sound and hence, work order be issued to it by revoking the same issued to respondent No.3. Support is drawn from the rejoinder filed by the petitioner on 118.3.2015, particularly its para 12.