Jan Adhar Sevabhavi Sanstha vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3494 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:10839-DB

                                                                  10.4801.23-wp.docx

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 4801 OF 2023


                       Jan Adhar Sevabhavi Sanstha                   ..... Petitioner

                               Vs.

                       Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
                       Corporation                                   ..... Respondents


                       Mr. Muthhar Khan I/b. Mr. Lalit Joshi for the Petitioner


                                        CORAM:    S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
                                                  SANDEEP V. MARNE,J.

DATED : APRIL 10, 2023

P.C.

1. The Petitioner had filled in tender pursuant to

the public notice issued by the Respondents for Bio-Mining

of Legacy Waste. The Petitioner's bid is rejected.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits

that one of the terms of the tender is that the bidder ought

to be a Company, Partnership Firm and LLP. Individual

bidder is not considered and in case of consortium the lead

member ought to be a Company. According to the learned

Counsel, there is no rationale behind excluding a society or

Basavraj 1/3

10.4801.23-wp.docx

entitling the others i.e. company, partnership or LLP and in

case of consortium the lead member to be a Company. If an

individual also qualifies, the individual should be held

eligible. The said term in the tender is arbitrary, illegal and

does not stand to any rational. The learned Counsel for the

Petitioner submits that same term has been set aside by the

Delhi High Court by the judgment and order dated 13 th

January 2023 passed in Writ Petition No.14732 of 2022.

3. The last date for filling in the tender was in

January 2023. It was extended. The Petitioner

participated in the tender process without any demur. The

bid of the Petitioner was rejected on 17th March 2023. After

the bid is rejected, the Petitioner has challenged the

condition in the tender.

4. It is trite that it is not open for a party to

challenge the terms of the tender after participating in the

tender process and having disqualified in the process. We

would have certainly entertained the petition, had the

Petitioner approached the Court earlier i.e. before

participating in the tender process.

       Basavraj                                                                        2/3





                                                    10.4801.23-wp.docx

5. In light of the above, no relief can be granted to

the Petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

       (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)                (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




       Basavraj                                                                       3/3