SCTCI JOINT VENTURE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed initially for quashment and setting aside Corrigendum dtd. 28/2/2026 issued by Respondent No. 5 thereby cancelling earlier tender process in respect of Tender ID No. 2026_DMA_1277022_I and to direct Respondent No. 5 to continue with the said tender process. Other alternate prayers were made however, by way of amendment, the Petitioner has prayed for quashment and setting aside decision of Respondent No. 5 declaring technical bid of the Petitioner as disqualified vide technical bid summary dtd. 30/3/2026 including opening of financial bid and issuance of work order.

(2.) Petitioner is coming with a case that Petitioner is a Joint Venture (JV) which is incorporated by virtue of Joint Venture agreement dtd. 19/2/2026. The members of the Petitioner are engaged in the business of construction and infrastructure development in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 5 has issued notice bearing E-Tender ID No. 2026_DMA_1277022_1 thereby inviting bids for work of "Construction of Various Works in Beed City belonging to Municipal Council Area under District Planning Committee Scheme 2025-2026 (30 Works)" (the impugned bid work) (hereinafter stated as 'bid work'). The booklet containing eligibility conditions were published. Certain eligibility conditions regarding machinery and equipment requirements so also the work experience to be possessed by the bidders for execution of the work were found arbitrary by the Petitioner and other bidders. The various bidders have suggested the Tendering Authority that the eligibility criteria regarding having ownership of 07 Transit Mixtures with Scada Certificate may be relaxed with the ownership or hired. Similarly, the hired Tippers/Trucks or Static Rollers may be permitted in place of owned Tippers/Trucks. The other suggestions were also given. Infact, by way of the said E-Tender, Joint Venture was not allowed to participate and when there was pre-bidding meeting, all these factors were brought to the notice of the Chief Officer and thereafter Addendum was published. Joint Venture was then allowed. However, all of a sudden, by Corrigendum dtd. 20/2/2026, the said E-Tender bid work was cancelled for technical reasons. Thereafter once again E-tender was issued for the same work with more stringent eligibility conditions particularly relating to machinery requirements and technical criteria. However, again Joint Venture was not allowed as per tender condition No. 4.3. Petitioner had participated in the earlier round and in the second round also the Petitioner participated. In all four bidders had taken part in the tender process. When the Petitioner tried to access the documents of the other bidders after bid submission confirmation, it was not visible and therefore, by communications dtd. 24/3/2026 and 28/3/2026, the Petitioner had requested the Respondent/Tendering Authority to make those documents available for perusal. The technical envelop No. 1 was opened and the Petitioner was held to be not eligible in view of the fact that it was a Joint Venture. The checklist described participation of the Petitioner under the caption "NA (Not Applicable)". A note was placed with in accordance with the tender conditions specified in Clause No. 4.3, which expressly prohibits Joint Venture and thus, the bid submitted by the Petitioner /Joint Venture stands disqualified from the further procurement process.

(3.) Petitioner alleges that the action of the Tendering Authority of not allowing Joint Venture to participate is arbitrary and all the steps those have been taken of not allowing the Petitioner to access the documents of co-bidders is tainted with malafides. Cancellation by way of Corrigendum on technical reason is also arbitrary. The Respondent/authorities have prescribed the tender conditions in such a manner so as to ensure participation of only selected bidders and to eliminate fair competition. Though earlier, some condition i.e. Clause No. 4.3 was relaxed, there was no necessity to impose same condition again and therefore, the action taken by Respondent/authorities is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which requires interference by this Court.