HARIBHAI VELJI Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is registered with the Public Works Department of the Government of Maharashtra as approved Contractor for the whole of the Maharashtra State. The respondent No. 1 Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short the Board) invited tenders vide tender notice dated 12-12-1966 (Annexure-F). According to the tender notice blank forms of the tender could obtained from the office of the Executive Engineer, Nagpur on production of attested copy of the registration, income tax clearance, solvency and experience certificate in similar works on payment of Rs. 200/- per copy in cash, from 22-8-1986 to 7-1-1987 during office hours on any working day. The tenders were to be submitted in the office of the Superintending Engineer on or before 9-1-1987. The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 submitted their tenders, but the Board accepted the tender of the respondent No. 3 in preference to the tender of the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the respondent No. 3 had no registration and, therefore his tender should not have been accepted. The challenge to this effect is raised in Ground No. (ii) of the petition, which reads as follows :

(2.) There is no dispute that the respondent No. 3 is not a registered contractor. It is obvious from the tender notice that the registration is one of the essential requirements and hence we would have quashed the decision of the Board in accepting the tender of the respondent No. 3 on this ground alone. However, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the tender was opened on 9-1-1987 and the letter of indent was issued on 19-1-1987 on the basis of which the work order was issued on 30th January, 1987. On the basis of these documents, the respondent No. 3 already commenced the work and has completed the work of excavation and bed concreting worth Rs. 30,000/-. The details about the work done and investments made by the respondent No. 3 is enumerated in para 18 of the return of the respondent No. 3. It is worthwhile to quote the same in order to appreciate the contention of the respondents that the interference with the impugned order at this stage would not be sound exercise of discretion on our part. Para 18 reads thus :

(3.) The Board has also filed an affidavit and asserted that the work has actually been commenced and any interference at this stage would result in the prejudice of the construction work which is of urgent nature. The Board has stated :---