Bombay High Court
Mahendranath Vidyaniwas Trivedi vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 February, 2023
Bench: G.S. Patel, Dr. Neela Gokhale
Mahendranath V Trivedi v State of Maharashtra & Ors
12-oswpl-3096-2023-J.doc
Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3096 OF 2023
Mahendranath Vidyaniwas
Trivedi,
Sole Proprietor of M/s Carlton Industrial
Engineers:
Age 74 Yrs, Occ-Business
Having address at:- 221, Bussa Industrial
Estate, Century Bazar Lane, Prabhadevi,
Mumbai 400 025. ...Petitioner
~ versus ~
1. State of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 001.
2. Oil And Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd,
IMR, Offshore Logistics Mumbai
Region,
ARUN
RAMCHNDRA Having office at:- 711, 7th floor,
11 High Building, Bandra Sion Link
SANKPAL
Road, Sion (W), Mumbai 400 017.
Digitally signed by
ARUN
RAMCHNDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2023.02.28
11:33:13 +0530
3. Oil And Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd,
Offshore Engineering Services (OES),
Having address as:- 4th floor, 11 High
Building, Bandra Sion Link Road,
Sion (W), Mumbai 400 017.
Page 1 of 6
27th February 2023
Mahendranath V Trivedi v State of Maharashtra & Ors
12-oswpl-3096-2023-J.doc
4. Oil And Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd,
Having Registered office at:-
Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Urja
Bhawan, 5, Nelson Mandela Marg,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110 070
India.
5. Union of India,
Through Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas,
Having office at:- Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi 110 001.
6. Independent External
Monitor,
Having Registered office at:-
Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Urja
Bhawan, 5, Nelson Mandela Marg,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110 070,
India. ...Respondents
A PPEARANCES
for the petitioner Mr Bhupesh Dhumatkar, i/b Mansi
Patel.
for respondents nos Mr Navroz Seervai, Senior
2 to 4. Advocate, Yash Dhruva,
Khushbu Chajjed & S Malbari.
for respondent Mr Abhishek Bhadang, with
no.5-UoI Ashutosh Misra.
for respondent- Mr Amit Shastri, AGP.
state
Page 2 of 6
27th February 2023
Mahendranath V Trivedi v State of Maharashtra & Ors
12-oswpl-3096-2023-J.doc
CORAM : G.S.Patel &
Neela Gokhale, JJ.
DATED : 27th February 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per GS Patel J):-
1. We have every reason to doubt the Petitioner's bona fides.
There are seriously disputed questions of facts.
2. The 31st January 2023 order by the contesting Respondent
and which is assailed in this Petition notes inter alia that the
Petitioner through his proprietorship submitted an "undated revised
certificate" issued by the Deputy General Manager (P), IMR
Section Offshore Logistics of Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd
("ONGC"). The 31st January 2023 communication says that it is
on the basis of this undated revised certificate that the Petitioner's
offer for a contract No. ONG/COL/HMM/CSR/USS/471/2015-
16/P76KC16005 (9010024782), for the strengthening of underwater
structural members of Platform and installation of grouted clamps in
Western Offshore was considered and was found to be technically
acceptable.
3. It is argued before us that the Petitioner knows nothing about
the so-called undated document, a copy of which is at Exhibit "D"
at page 77, and that this was supposedly produced by ONGC itself.
Emphasis is laid on a job completion certificate signed by the same
DGM of 5th June 2017 at page 76.
27th February 2023
Mahendranath V Trivedi v State of Maharashtra & Ors
12-oswpl-3096-2023-J.doc
4. Prima facie it is difficult to understand what is to be made of
this, because the ONGC accepts the issuance of 5th June 2017 job
completion certificate at Exhibit "C" but maintains that it was the
Petitioner who produced the so-called certificate at Exhibit "D" and
which bears no date.
5. Even more peculiarly, the undated certificate seems to shower
compliments on the Petitioner, apart from wishing him great success
and all good luck. To say that we have never seen ONGC or its
officers acting in so magnanimous fashion with any contractor might
be a great understatement. The impugned document of 31st January
2023 in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 at page 316B says this:
"7. AND WHEREAS, the Enquiry Officer has duly
issued a show cause notice bearing no. MR/MUM/TA-
BA/Banning/Carlton/2022 dated 05.12.2022 to M/s
Carlton Industrial Engineers, Mumbai for showing cause,
within ten (10) days from the receipt of the said notice, as to
why business dealings with you including your allied
concerns, partners, associates, directors, or proprietors etc.
should not be banned/put on holiday for misrepresentation
of facts against the ONGC tender.
8. AND WHEREAS, M/s Carlton Industrial
Engineers, Mumbai have submitted their response to the
show cause notice vide mail dated 14.12.2022 subsequent to
their required personal hearing on 09.12.2022.
9. AND WHEREAS, upon completion of the Inquiry,
Enquiry Officer, after perusal of all relevant
documents/materials placed before him, came to be
conclusion that M/s Carlton had submitted the revised
undated completion certificate in collusion with Project
Coordinator of work ("Strengthening of underwater
27th February 2023
Mahendranath V Trivedi v State of Maharashtra & Ors
12-oswpl-3096-2023-J.doc
structural members of platforms and installation of grouted
clamps in western offshore" or IMR Section, Offshore
Logistics, ONGC) with a sole intent to take advantage and
get themselves qualified for tender no. P851C19002 and
hence, recommended for putting M/s Carlton Industrial
Engineers, Mumbai on holiday for a period of six (6)
months from the date of issue of Banning order."
6. We are asked to believe that there is something amiss in
ONGC's approach, conclusion and order and that the Petitioner is
blameless because there is no fault found with him regarding the so-
called integrity pact. That is not credible. It is not a question of the
integrity pact. It is a question of a public tender process undertaken
by a public body like ONGC being subverted by producing
documents that are ex facie dubious.
7. The real purpose of the Petition is disclosed by prayer clauses
(c) and (d) which read thus:
"(c) That his Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or any
other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and be pleased to quash and set aside
the order dated 21st September 2021 along with the newly
issued Completion Certiorari which bears the name of
Nautic Offshore Pte Ltd as technical collaborator.
(d) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any
other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and be pleased to direct the
Respondent nos. 1 to 6 to accept the old Completion
Certificate issued to the Petitioner by Respondent Nos. 2 to
5 bearing only Petitioner's name as the contractor."
27th February 2023
Mahendranath V Trivedi v State of Maharashtra & Ors
12-oswpl-3096-2023-J.doc
8. This lets the proverbial cat out of the bag. It is evident that
the Petitioner had more than one completion certificate up his
sleeve and now wants a ratification or an endorsement of some new
completion certificate.
9. At the very least, these are seriously disputed questions of
fact. We see no way to adjudicate them in our summary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no question
of granting the Petitioner any ad-interim relief in light of the pointed
reference to documentation that is not only disputed but is prima
facie said to have been produced by collusion with one of ONGC's
own officer.
10. The Writ Petition is rejected. There will be no order as to
costs.
(Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)
27th February 2023
