JAY CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents have floated tender for construction of major bridge across Burai River in Tq. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule. The prebid meeting was convened on 27.11.2017. Some common deviations were settled. The petitioner submitted his bid. In all, six bids were received. Upon opening the technical bid, the petitioner and one another bidder were held disqualified. Four bidders were held qualified after opening the technical bid. Their financial bid was opened and respondent No. 5 was declared as a successful bidder. The work order is issued to respondent No. 5.

(2.) Mr. Brahme, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, no reasons are given while holding the petitioner disqualified for the work. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the technical bids were not opened on 8-12-2017 i.e. the date stipulated in the tender. As per the respondent, the technical bid has been opened on 11.12017. The petitioner was not aware of the opening of the technical bid. The learned counsel submits that, in the additional affidavit-in-reply the contention of respondent that as the petitioner did not annex the copy of the Demand Draft of additional security deposit of Rs. 5.00 lakhs, technically the petitioner is disqualified is erroneous. The condition of the situation of the Hot Mix Plant within the distance of 60 kms of the site is not a mandatory condition. The petitioner cannot be disqualified on that count. According to the learned counsel, the qualification criteria is stated in the tender document under clause 4.5. The condition of additional security deposit of Rs. 5.00 lakhs is not a mandatory condition as the same does not form part of qualification criteria under clause 4.5. The learned counsel submits that, the extended date of opening the technical bid was never communicated to the petitioner and behind the back of the petitioner the technical bids are opened. Even the attendant sheet shows two dates one 11.12017 and another 15.12017. This depicts that the proceedings are not held in a transparent manner. The letter dated 14.12017 issued by the petitioner and relied by the respondent is in fact written by the petitioner in anticipation and the same cannot be construed that petitioner had the knowledge of the extended date of opening the technical bid.

(3.) The learned advocate further submits that, the respondents have not followed the Govt. Resolution dated 12.04.2017 more particularly clause 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 thereof. The shifting would be required if the temperature of the product is not maintained if it is brought from a distance of more than 60 km. and the trial run is to be done within 30 days of the issuance of the work order. This aspect also would show that the condition of deposit of additional security of Rs. 5.00 lakhs is not a mandatory condition. This aspect has not been considered by the authority.