Bombay High Court
Mr. V.D. Salunke A/W Mr. M.V. Salunke ... vs Unknown on 18 May, 2026
15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 14730 OF 2026
JAIDEEPRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.D. Salunke a/w Mr. M.V. Salunke i/by Salunke
Legal
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
VACATION COURT DATE : 18.05.2026 PER COURT :
Leave granted to correct to prayer clause.
2. Heard Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Mr. Salunke, would submit that the petitioner has participated in the tender floated by the Municipal Corporation Parbhani for work of "augmentation to the Parbhani Water Supply Scheme under AMRUT 2.0 ." The petitioner submitted online tender along with necessary documents. The petitioner's technical bid came to be rejected earlier without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner was blacklisted. Therefore the petitioner approached before this Court by Writ Petition No. 5042/2026. This Court by order dated 05.05.2026 set aside the said order and directed the Municipal Corporation to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, after hearing the petitioner, the impugned order is passed on the ground that the petitioner had concealed the "Risk and Cost clause-3" and there was violation of affidavit (annexure 14). In fact, the technical bid of the petitioner was not rejected on all these grounds. In fact, it was rejected only on the ground 1/2
15.odt that the petitioner was blacklisted by Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation and after the order passed by this Court, the Municipal Commissioner, on another ground, again rejected the technical bid.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no dispute about the fact that the earlier rejection was only on the ground that the petitioner was blacklisted and when the said order was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Municipal Commissioner to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Municipal Corporation again on different ground, rejected the technical bid of the petitioner.
5. I have gone through chart which was prepared earlier. The technical bid was rejected earlier on the ground of being blacklisted, and subsequently on the ground that there was violation of affidavit (annexure 14). I have also gone through affidavit (annexure 14) as well as "Risk and Cost clause- 3". Even affidavit (annexure 14) does not reflect that the petitioner concealed necessary information and provided false information. Municipal Commissioner without stating grounds for the same, has only conveyed the rejection. Therefore, I am inclined to grant interim relief in favour of the petitioner.
6. In view of that, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 09.06.2026. In the meantime, there shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause 'E' and 'F'.
7. Learned A.G.P. waives service for respondent no. 1.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) mkd/-
2/2