NITIN LAXMIDAS DAMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed the present petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking declaration of ineligibility of Respondent No.6 in the tender process initiated by Respondent Nos.1 to 5 for allotment of warehouses on lease for a period of 30 years. Petitioner has also sought writ of mandamus for consideration of its bid for allotment of seven warehouses which have been allotted to Respondent No.6.

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under :-

(3.) We have heard Mr. Naphade, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. He would submit that Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have erroneously held Respondent No.6 eligible though it had not fulfilled the mandatory eligibility criteria relating to turnover and net worth. That Respondent No.6 is a partnership firm, which was set up only on 2/7/2024 i.e. merely 20 days prior to issuance of tender on 22/7/2024. That therefore it was impossible for Respondent No.6 to satisfy the requirement of annual financial turnover exceeding Rs.50,00,000.00 each year and for previous three years. He would further submit that partners of Respondent No.6 also did not submit requisite certificate of Chartered Accountant to indicate that they possessed annual financial turnover exceeding Rs.50,00,000.00. That therefore Respondent Nos.1 to 5 ought to have rejected the technical bid of Respondent No.6 for failure to submit certificate of Chartered Accountant to demonstrate annual financial turnover as required in the E-Tender Notice. Mr. Naphade would further submit that for satisfying the mandatory condition of networth of Rs.50,00,000.00 per warehouse, Respondent No.6 submitted Networth Certificate dtd. 27/4/2024 of one Mr. Rajiv Chandulal Darji issued by the Chartered Accountant reflecting his networth to be Rs.15.21 crores. However, Mr. Rajiv Chandulal Darji is not the partner of Respondent No.6-Firm. He is merely a Director of the Company, who happens to be the partner of Respondent No.6. That therefore personal networth of Mr. Rajiv Darji cannot be the networth of Respondent No.6. That except the said Certificate of networth of Mr. Rajiv Darji, Respondent No.6 has not submitted any other document to demonstrate possession of the requisite by it. That therefore the bid of Respondent No.6 ought to have been rejected. He would further submit that the income tax returns of Respondent No.6 have also not been submitted. That income-tax returns of some of the partners are unaudited. Similarly, professional tax returns, as well as GST Certificates have also not been submitted by Respondent No.6. He would therefore submit that Respondent No.6 has been erroneously held technically qualified in the bidding process. He would accordingly pray for cancellation of allotment of seven warehouses to Respondent No.6 and for consideration of Petitioner's bid therefor.