Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Thr. ... vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5197 Bom

30-WP-2757-22                                                                                                                    1/5


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                                       WRIT PETITION NO.2757 OF 2022

    Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its Authorized Representative Bhimrao s/o Vinayak Tandekar
                                          Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chattisgarh
                                                                 -vs-
 The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary of Revenue and Forest Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai
                                                             and ors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                                     Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.


                                   Shri Madhur Deo, Advocate for petitioner.
                                   Ms N. P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1
                                   and 2.
                                   Shri R. M. Bhangade, Advocate for respondent No.3.

                                   CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA S. JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.

DATE : June 09, 2022

P.C.

The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the e-

auction conducted by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 pursuant to the

tender notice dated 04/02/2022. As per the said tender notice

e-auction of various sand-ghats was proposed. As per schedule

of e-auction, e-tenders were to be accepted On-line till 10 pm

on 19/02/2022. The e-auction process was to be conducted on

21/02/2022 between 11 am to 3 pm. It was stated that

thereafter the e-tenders/e-bids would be opened. It is common

ground that in view of orders passed in other proceedings the

proceedings, the auction activities that were scheduled on

21/02/2022 were held subsequently on 18/05/2022. According 30-WP-2757-22 2/5

to the petitioner it was necessary for the respondent Nos.1 to 3

to have indicated to all the bidders the upset price which ought

to have been the price quoted by the highest bidder at the pre-

bid stage. However, without disclosing such upset price and by

conducting the e-auction on the basis of the upset price of

Rs.72,72,000/-, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 committed an

illegality. The object behind holding an e-auction was to ensure

that a good price is received in such auction after competitive

bidding. The respondent No.4 in its bid had quoted an amount

of Rs.1,09,08,000/- and by treating that amount as the highest

bid, the sand-ghat was allotted to the respondent No.4. It was

necessary for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to have commenced

bidding from the amount quoted by highest bidder but the same

was not done. Inviting attention to the judgment of the

Division Bench in Writ Petition No.6372/2012 (Arunodaya

Magaswargiya Mazdoor Kamgar Shahakari Sanstha Ltd. vs. The

State of Maharashtra and ors.) decided on 15th/16th June 2013

it was submitted that by deviating from such procedure, there

was no opportunity to enhance the bid amount from the bid

quoted by respondent No.4. This infact resulted in a lower

amount being received by the State under the auction. The

learned counsel also referred to the decisions in Ram and Shyam 30-WP-2757-22 3/5

Company vs. State of Haryana and ors. (1985) 3 SCC 267 and

Asha Mehta and anr. vs. Allahabad Bank and ors. 2011(1)

Mh.L.J. 1011 in that regard. It was thus submitted that the

tender notice dated 04/02/2022 for the sand-ghat at Mohkhedi

Taluka Mouda, District Nagpur ought to be set aside.

2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as the learned counsel for the

respondent No.4 opposed aforesaid submissions. It was

submitted that the auction was conducted in accordance with

the Government Resolution dated 28/01/2022. Under that

Government Resolution it was not stipulated that the bidding

process would commence from the rate quoted by the highest

bidder while submitting his bid. The up-set price was indicated

in the tender notice itself and since the respondent No.4 had

quoted a rate much higher than the upset price and more than

what was quoted by the petitioner, the bid of respondent No.4

was accepted. There were no allegations of malafides or breach

of the Government Resolution dated 28/01/2022 and therefore

there was no reason to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Moreover,

the respondent No.4 had already commenced the work under

the contract.

30-WP-2757-22 4/5

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at

length and we have perused the documents placed on record. It

is seen that the petitioner has not alleged breach of any

condition either of the Government Resolution dated

28/01/2022 or the tender notice dated 04/02/2022 in the writ

petition. The auction in question was conducted in accordance

with the said Government Resolution and the tender notice.

The manner in which the auction ought to have been held

according to the petitioner by disclosing the price rate quoted by

the highest bidder does not find place either in the said

Government Resolution or the tender notice. Moreover, there

are no allegations of malafides or favoritism against the

respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the basis of which the bid was allotted

to the respondent No.4. In absence of there being any deviation

from the procedure prescribed for holding the e-auction, there

would be no scope to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

4. Though it was urged by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that with a view to ensure a higher amount being

received by the State Government while auctioning the sand-

ghats it was necessary to have permitted competitive bidding

from the highest rate quoted by a bidder, we find that the same 30-WP-2757-22 5/5

is not stipulated as the procedure according to which the auction

was to be conducted. If the petitioner was not satisfied with the

manner in which the auction was to be conducted and the terms

expected by the petitioner were not found in the tender notice,

the petitioner ought to have challenged the tender notice prior

to participating in the auction process. The same has however

not been done.

5. Thus in absence of any illegality being pointed out by the

petitioner while accepting the bid of respondent No.4 coupled

with the fact un-disputedly the respondent No.4 was the highest

bidder, there is no case made out to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

The Writ Petition therefore stands dismissed with no

order as to costs.

(Urmila S. Joshi-Phalke, J.) (A. S. Chandurkar, J.)

Asmita Digitally signed byASMITA ADWAIT BHANDAKKAR Signing Date:10.06.2022 18:33:47