Bombay High Court
M/S Khalatkar Construction Infra ... vs Nagpur Mumbai Super ... on 1 April, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
wp1395.21.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1395 OF 2021
PETITIONER: M/s. Khalatkar Construction Infra Pvt. Ltd.
Rainbow Greeners (Joint - Venture).
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS: 1. Nagpur Mumbai Super Communication
Expressway Limited, through its Director
In Charge, MSRDC Ltd., Opposite Bandra
Reclamation Bus Depot, K.C.Marg,
Bandra (W), Mumbai.
2. Maharashtra State Road Trnasport
Corporation Ltd., through its Vice Chairman
& Managing Director, Nepean Sea Road,
Priyadarshini Park, Mumbai.
3. Ministry of Public Works Department,
through its Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.D.Heda, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.D.Mohgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Shri A.A.Madiwale, AGP for respondent no.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATE : 01/04/2021.
wp1395.21.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
1] Hearing is conducted through Video Conferencing and
all the learned Advocates agreed that the audio and visual quality
was proper.
2] Heard Shri Heda, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who
appears by waiving notice and Shri Madiwale, learned AGP for
Respondent No. 3.
3] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4] The petitioner has been found to be disqualified in the
technical bid which he submitted in response to the tender notice
issued for execution of plantation work. The reason given for
disqualification of the petitioner is that he failed to qualify the
categories (I) and (III) mentioned in clause 2.2.2.6 pertaining to
Eligible Experience on Projects in respect of each category
enumerated therein. Sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (iii) respectively
wp1395.21.odt
related to Category (I) and Category (III). Sub-clause (i) prescribes
that the bidder must possess experience of "Infrastructure
Development Project" involving water source development/water
supply/micro irrigation system/ plantation/ landscaping &
beautification work for Government/Semi Government organizations
etc. Sub-clause (iii) refers to the experience of operation &
maintenance of tree plantation & landscape garden/park for a
minimum of 2 years for Government/Semi Government
organizations.
5] Before we turn to sub-clause (iii) of Clause 2.2.2.6, we
would first consider sub-clause (i) of the said clause. Sub-clause (i) is
about possession of experience in "Infrastructure Development
Project" and then the further experience required under this clause is
of development of such project relating to either water source
development or water supply or micro irrigation system or plantation
or landscaping and beautification of the landscape.
6] According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
petitioner possesses sufficient experience in infrastructure
wp1395.21.odt
developmental works and for this purpose, the petitioner relies upon
the certificate of experience filed alongwith this petition at page 93.
This certificate of experience shows that the work carried out by the
petitioner was "Renovation & Construction of E/W Lining and
Structures for Dighori Branch Asolamendha Main Canal". This work
was obviously not of the category of "Development of Infrastructure"
and it was only in respect of Renovation & Construction of E/W on
the structure already existing. Therefore, this certificate would not
qualify the petitioner for Category (I) as prescribed in sub-clause (i)
of Clause 2.2.2.6.
7] The petitioner also relies upon another certificate which
is annexed to the petition at page 96. This certificate also speaks
about "Renovation & Development of 200 m Avenue Road". As stated
earlier, work relating to renovation and further development is not
the same as development of infrastructure project, as in the former
what happens is carrying out of necessary repairs and making some
new additions to the existing work or structure, while in the latter, a
project is to be constructed and completed right from the scratch,
starting from designing, planning, preparation of layouts, levelling of
wp1395.21.odt
lands, taking proper measurement, excavation and making
construction in accordance with the plan.
8] So, we find that the petitioner does not qualify for this
contract, as he fails to satisfy the requirement of sub-clause (i) of
Clause 2.2.2.6 of the tender document. This being the position, we
do not find that any purpose would be served by considering the
eligibility of the petitioner in terms of category (III) as well, with the
eligibility being required for each of the categories. The petition thus
fails and it is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rvjalit
