Bombay High Court
Shri Mungsaji Sales And Services, ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 4 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp4023.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4023/2016
PETITIONER: Shri Mungsaji Sales & Services
Through its Proprietor Mangal Bhauraoji Jule
Aged - Major, Occupation - Business,
R/o Netaji Nagar, Darwah Road,
Yavatmal - 445001.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya
Extension, Mumbai - 400032.
2. The Commissioner, Integrated Tribal
Development Department, Nashik,
Maharashtra.
3. The Additional Commissioner, Integrated Tribal
Development Department, Amravati.
4. The Project Officer,
Integrated Tribal Development Project,
Pandharkawada, Distt. Yavatmal.
5. Din Dalit Bahuuddeshiya Adiwasi Gramin Vikas
Sanstha through its Secretary Kiran Jaipal
Kumre r/o Telang Takli, Taluka Kelapur,
Distt. Yavatmal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.A. Madiwale, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4
Ms Mugdha Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent no.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 04.08.2016
wp4023.16.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action on
the part of the respondent no.4 - Project Officer to hold negotiations in
the tender process for supplying meals for Tribal Boys Hostel No.3 in
Yavatmal.
The petitioner is a registered proprietary concern carrying
on the business of supplying food/meals to the Government Tribal Hostels
for the past few years. The respondent no.4 had floated an e-tender on
2.5.2016 for supplying meals and food to the tribal hostels in the region.
The petitioner submitted the bid for the Tribal Boys Hostel No.3 at
Yavatmal. The bids were opened by the respondent no.4 - Project Officer
on 18.5.2016. Admittedly, the bid of the petitioner is the lowest and the
bid of the respondent no.5 - Tribal Adiwasi Society is the third lowest. As
per the Government Resolution, dated 4.3.2014, the Government called
the petitioner as well as the respondent no.5 for negotiations so as to
consider whether the respondent no.5 could match the bid, that was
offered by the petitioner. The action on the part of the respondent no.4,
calling the petitioner and the respondent no.5 for negotiations, is
challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.
wp4023.16.odt
Shri Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the respondent no.4 - Project Officer was not justified in
inviting the respondent no.5 and the petitioner for negotiations, with a
view to grant an opportunity to the respondent no.5 to match the lowest
bid of the petitioner. It is submitted that though the Government
Resolution, dated 4.3.2014 provided for an opportunity to the Adiwasi
Societies and the other Adiwasi categories mentioned in the said
Resolution to offer a bid that matches the bid of the lowest bidder, by the
subsequent Government Resolution, dated 10.9.2015, the said policy is
modified. It is stated that as per the Government Resolution, dated
10.9.2015 only if the bid of the tribal society matches the bid of a
non-tribal society or an individual, who does not fall within the tribal
categories mentioned in the Government Resolution, then a preference is
granted to the tribal society or the other categories of tribals, that are
mentioned in the Government Resolution. It is stated that a preference is
required to be given to the tribals, as per the Government Resolution,
dated 10.9.2015 only when the tribal society or the other categories of
tribals, that are mentioned in the Government Resolution, submit a bid
that matches or equals the bid of a non-tribal. It is stated that in this case,
admittedly, the bid of the petitioner is the lowest and the respondent no.5
has not given a similar bid. It is stated that the bid of the respondent no.5
wp4023.16.odt
is the third lowest and therefore, the question of granting preference to
the respondent no.5 would not arise. It is stated that in view of the policy
of the Government, as reflected from the Government Resolution, dated
10.9.2015, the respondent no.4 would not be justified in inviting the
petitioner and the respondent no.5 for negotiations, with a view to grant
an opportunity to the respondent no.5 to match the lowest bid of the
petitioner.
Shri Madiwale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4 fairly states that the
action on the part of the Project officer was based on the Government
Resolution, dated 4.3.2014 and the communication, dated 26.7.2016. It is
stated that the Project Officer was aware of the Government Resolution,
dated 10.9.2015, but due to the order in Writ petition No.2851/2016, the
respondent no.5 was called for negotiations. It is, however, fairly stated
that as per the Government Resolution, dated 10.9.2015 there cannot be a
preference to the Adiwasi categories mentioned in the Government
Resolution, unless the bid of one or more tribal categories matches the
lowest bid submitted by a non-tribal person or entity.
Ms Chandurkar, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.5
submitted that if the respondent no.5 is called for negotiations, the
respondent no.5 is ready to offer the bid that matches the lowest bid of
wp4023.16.odt
the petitioner.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the Government Resolution, dated 10.9.2015, it appears that
the Project Officer was not justified in inviting the petitioner and the
respondent no.5 for negotiations, with a view to grant opportunity to the
respondent no.5 - Adiwasi Society to match the lowest bid of the
petitioner. Earlier writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.2851/2016 was
disposed of merely on the statement made by the learned Government
Pleader that the Project Officer would call the categories of Adiwasi
Societies including the respondent no.5 for negotiations. In the said writ
petition, the issue whether the categories of Tribals, that are mentioned in
the Government Resolution, dated 10.9.2015, could be called for
negotiations, if their bid was higher than the bid of the non-tribal, was not
considered at all. Since the writ petition was disposed of merely by
accepting the statement made by the learned Government Pleader that
satisfied the grievance of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the
respondent no.5 would be entitled to offer a bid that matches the lowest
bid of the petitioner. It is apparent from the Government Resolution,
dated 10.9.2015 that by the said Government Resolution, the Government
Resolution, dated 4.3.2014 was modified and a preference was provided
to the tribal categories only if the bid offered by them matches with the
wp4023.16.odt
lowest bid of a non-tribal. In the instant case, admittedly, the bid of the
petitioner is the lowest and the bid of the respondent no.5 is the third
lowest. In view of the Government Resolution, dated 10.9.2015, an
opportunity could not have been granted to the respondent no.5 to match
the lowest bid of the petitioner. Since the preference is required to be
granted to the tribal categories only if their bid matches the bid of the
non-tribal, the relief sought by the petitioner needs to be granted.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The action on the part of the Project Officer of calling the
petitioner and the respondent no.5 for negotiations is hereby quashed and
set aside. The respondent no.4 is directed to consider granting the
contract in favour of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within two
weeks.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
wp4023.16.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed judgment.
Uploaded by : S.S. Wadkar, P.S. Uploaded on : 06/08/2016
ig
