Bombay High Court
Kamlesh S/O. Baburao Lanjewar vs Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... on 15 April, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
wpst5725.21 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 5725/2021
Kamlesh B. Lanjewar
...VERSUS...
VIDC & ors.
**************************************************************************************************************
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
**************************************************************************************************************
Shri G. Sawal, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for the respondent - VIDC
Shri D.P. Thakare, Addl. GP to assist the Court
********
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
APRIL 15, 2021
By the present petition, the petitioner has
challenged the technical bid of the petitioner mainly on the
ground that the petitioner has failed to submit necessary
documents in respect of two works which are being carried
out by him for the State of Maharashtra. The grievance of the
petitioner is that the necessary documents which the
petitioner had allegedly failed to upload as per the tender
conditions is not an essential condition of contract and he
must be given an opportunity to participate in the tender
process. The advocate for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is ready to upload the necessary documents in
relation to two works being carried out by him today itself. It
is informed by the advocate for the petitioner that since the
site on which the documents are required to be uploaded has
been closed, it is not possible for the petitioner to upload the
ANSARI
documents. He submitted that the financial bid in respect of
the said contract will be opened tomorrow i.e. on
16/04/2021. According to the petitioner, he must be given an
opportunity to participate in the tender process and
submission of his bid can be made subject to result of this
petition.
2] Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate appearing for VIDC
submits that the tender conditions specifically require each
bidder to submit the documents in support of the works
carried out by them so as to meet the eligibility criteria. He
submits that since the petitioner has failed to upload the
necessary documents, his financial bid cannot be opened and
he is not eligible as per the tender conditions.
3] Considering the fact that the financial bid is
likely to be opened on 16/04/2021, in our opinion, the
interests of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted
to participate in the tender process and the financial bid
submitted by the petitioner is opened by VIDC. Participation
of the petitioner in the tender process shall be without
prejudice to the rights of the parties and the petitioner shall
not claim any equities on the basis of the order passed by this
Court. We therefore, by way of an ad-interim relief, direct the
VIDC to allow the petitioner to participate in the tender
process alongwith the other bidders. The allotment of the
contract to any of the successful bidder shall not be issued
without leave of this Court.
ANSARI
4] Considering the rationale behind imposing the
conditions, we direct the petitioner to place the requisite
copies of the documents supporting the works being carried
out by the petitioner failure of which has resulted into
rejection of the bid of the petitioner shall be placed before
each of the bidder atleast one hour before opening of the
financial bid. VIDC is directed to transmit or supply the
documents to be submitted by the petitioner before opening
of the financial bid to the bidders who would be taking part in
the financial bid so that the bidders shall have the
opportunity to examine the claim of the petitioner. The
documents shall be sent by e-mail or through any other
messaging service or if the bidders are ready, then the
documents can be handed over to the bidders physically well
before the opening of the financial bid.
5] During the course of hearing of this writ petition
relating to tender process being carried out by VIDC, it
revealed that there are financial problems faced by the State
because of which payment is not made to contractors who
have already carried out / completed the contracts in relation
to High Court and sub-ordinate judiciary, after following the
due procedure. It is brought to our notice that even in case of
works which are completed in relation to the High Court and
sub-ordinate judiciary, the contractors who have completed
the works after administrative approval was granted by the
Competent Authorities have not been paid. The result of non-
payment to the contractors is hampering the present and
future works being carried out by the contractors in relation
to the High Court and sub-ordinate Courts. The inability of
ANSARI
the contractors to carry out the work which is going on, or
future work is affecting the administration of justice. The
Division Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, in Public
Interest Litigation No. 156/2011 ( Mumbai Grahak Panchayat
and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Others ) has
referred the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India and in the case of
Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar. In para nos. 9 and 10
of the said judgment, it is laid down as under :-
"9. In the decision in the case of New Bombay
Advocates' Welfare Association, the Division Bench of this
Court dealt with the issue of financial constraints which is
always raised by the State Government when it comes to
providing proper infrastructure to the Judiciary. The
Paragraph 21 of the decision in the case of New Bombay
Advocates' Welfare Association reads thus:
"21. In some detail, we have already discussed
constitutional obligation of the State Government of
establishing the Courts in the City and of providing all the
infrastructures to the Courts. As far as the decision of
establishing the Courts is concerned or as far as the
requirement of constructing new Court buildings or new
judicial quarters is concerned, the same will have to be
taken by the High Court Administration after considering
all the relevant factors. The views/opinion of High Court
Administration on the aspect of establishing new Courts
must get primacy. However, as laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Brij Mohan Lal, once the High Court
Administration decides to set up a new Court or to
ANSARI
construct a new building for housing the Courts or new
building for the judicial quarters, the plea of financial
constraints or financial limitations is not available to the
State. The Courts should be free of undesirable
administrative and financial restrictions. The State cannot
refuse to perform its constitutional obligation of providing
adequate judicial infrastructure and means of access to
justice to citizens. As pointed out by Shri. Kumbhakoni,
the learned senior counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae,
there are delays involved at every stages right from the
sanction of the initial proposal for construction of Court
building. At every stage, the State Government comes out
with an excuse of financial constraints. In view of the law
laid down by the Apex Court in the decision in the case of
Brij Mohan Lal, the said excuse is no longer available to
the State Government. As held therein, the Courts should
be free of undesirable financial restrictions."
(emphasis added)
10. Thus, the obligation of the State is to provide adequate
number of Courts, proper infrastructure to the Courts and
proper facilities to the Judicial Officers, litigants as well as to
the members of the Bar. Most essential part of the
infrastructure will be adequate lands/buildings for the Court
Complexes and residential quarters of Judges. "
The Division Bench has further laid down that
providing infrastructure and other facilities to the Courts and
judicial officers is the facet of fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
ANSARI
6] We are therefore of the view that in the cases
where work was or is being carried out by the contractors
after due administrative approval from the Competent
Authorities, the State of Maharashtra shall endeavor to make
payment of those contractors immediately and in any case
within four months from the date of submission of their final
bills.
7] Stand over to 20/04/2021.
8] Shri D.P. Thakare, learned Addl. GP who is
present through VC in the Court shall communicate this order
to the Principal Secretary, PWD and Principal Secretary,
Finance Department, State of Maharashtra immediately.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
ANSARI
