Bombay High Court
M/S. S.B. Konapure Thr. Parnters ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Govt. ... on 8 February, 2023
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
46(i)-WP..6812.2021
jvs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6812 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3354 OF 2021
M/s. S. B. Konapure through Partners }
and PoA Shivanand Basappa Konapure } Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. } Respondents
Mr. V. M. Parsurami with Mr. Sudhir Halli
for the petitioner.
Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate with
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader, Mr.
Akshay Shinde, 'B' Panel Counsel and Mr.
Ravi Kadam, AGP for State.
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.&
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 2023
P.C.:
1. The petitioner participated in the tender process pursuant
to the tender notice issued by the respondents for transportation
of food-grains under public transportation system. The technical
bid of the petitioner is rejected basically on the ground that the
petitioner does not possess the capacity as required under the
tender document.
2. As per clause 5.1 of the tender document, the petitioner
shall have work experience of transportation equivalent to 33%
metric ton of the food-grains transported for last three years in a
district.
46(i)-WP..6812.2021
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
scheme was introduced only in the year 2021. As such, it would
not be possible for any transporter to transport such a huge
quantity of food-grains. The learned counsel further submits that
because of Covid-19 also the transportation was affected. It is
further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner had
transported food-grains to the Solapur city. Because of the less
card holders, the quantity of supply of food-grain is less. The same
is marginally lower than the turnover required in the tender
document. The learned counsel submits that the respondents
have power to relax the tender conditions. The same has not been
done. It is only to favour cartel, such condition has been
introduced.
4. Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned senior counsel for the
respondents submits that the petitioner, in para 13 of the writ
petition, has admitted that it does not possess the necessary
qualification as required under clause 5.1 of the tender document.
The terms of the tender cannot be challenged nor relaxation can
be claimed after participating in the tender process. Reliance is
placed by Mr. Kumbhakoni on the judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court, to which one of us (The Acting Chief Justice) was a
party, in the case of Datta s/o. Sakharam Kothule & Ors. vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2020(4) Mh. L. J. 710.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner had participated in the tender
process. The petitioner does not possess the necessary experience
of the transportation of the food-grain as required by clause 5.1 of
the tender document. Relaxing any term of the tender would
amount to rewriting the terms of the tender and the same is not
permissible. The grievance of the petitioner could have been
considered on its own merits if the terms of the tender would
46(i)-WP..6812.2021
have been challenged prior to the participation by the petitioner
in the tender process.
6. In light of the above, no case for interference is made out.
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
7. In light of the dismissal of the writ petition, the interim
application also is disposed of.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for
continuation of the interim order.
9. In view of the admitted fact in the petition itself that the
petitioner did not possess the necessary qualification, we do not
accede to the request for continuation of the interim order. The
prayer is rejected.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
