Subhash S/O Rambhau Kosalge vs The State Of Mah Thr Its Secty., And ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 56 Bom

                                 1




                                                                      
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                              
                  Writ Petition No.1063 of 2009


     Subhash son of Rambhau Kosalge,




                                             
     aged about 59 years,
     occupation   Business &
     Agriculture, resident of
     Kali Daukavar, Tq. Mahagaon,
     Distt. Yavatmal.                          ....          Petitioner.




                              
                              Versus

     1.
                   
          The State of Maharashtra,
          through its Secretary,
          General Administration Deptt.
                  
          Mantralaya, Fort,
          Mumbai-32.

     2.   The Collector, Yavatmal,
          Tq. & Distt. Yavatmal,
      


          AND
          The President of the Distt.
   



          Setu Society,
          Yavatmal,
          Tq. & Distt. Yavatmal.               ....          Respondents.





                               *****

     Mr. A.M. Gordey, Adv., for the petitioner.





     Mrs. T.D. Khade, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondents.

                               *****

                                CORAM     :     A.H. JOSHI AND
                                                A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

Date : 08th December,2009.

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A.H. Joshi, J]:

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent.

2. Crux of the petition is that the doctrine as

set out in the reported ruling of Hon ble Supreme Court

in case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. The International

Airport Authority of India & ors. [AIR 1979 SC 1628]

has been followed by respondents in breach.

3. Petitioner s claim is that the tender

conditions contained a stipulation providing as

follows:-

22. ................................... ......If a bid is not substantially responsive, it will be rejected by the

Tendering Authority and may not subsequently be made responsive by the bidder by correction of the nonconformity. Technical bid shall be evaluated in three sub-steps.

[Quoted from page 86 of the writ petition paper-book].

4. Result of the stipulation quoted above is that

a bidder, who does not stand to the scrutiny, is liable

to be treated as a non-responsive bidder and has to be

excluded from further process.

5. Admittedly, respondents gave an opportunity to

non-responsive bidders to comply with the deficiencies

through official communication dated 18th May, 2009,

which is at Annexure-VII.

6. The State has not explained as to how the

respondents were entitled to deviate from the declared

tender conditions, when, admittedly, tender conditions

did not permit rectification, which, had they decided,

could have so prescribed.

7. On this sole ground, the tender process

subject-matter is liable to be struck down.

8. Learned Adv. for the petitioner has pointed

out that the tender document has been formulated by

incorporating conditions which may be so stiff that it

would be very difficult to receive good number of

responsive tenders, resulting into elimination of a

fair competition, and, in the result, harming the

interest of the State and public exchequer.

9. We cannot, at this stage, believe that the

contention raised by the petitioner before us can be

endorsed as a fact of the matter, and issue any

direction thereon. We, however, consider that said

contention should be noted by the respondents as a

caveat and while re-tendering, due care is taken to

ensure that there is proper publication of the process

of inviting offers and a fair competition is ensured.

10. In the result, Rule is made absolute in terms

of Prayer Clauses (b) and (b-i) by fresh tendering

process as may be deemed just and expedient and in the

public interest.

11. In the circumstances, parties are directed to

bear own costs.

               JUDGE                                              JUDGE

                                     -0-0-0-0-

     |hedau|