Bombay High Court
Aaradhya Infrastructure vs Sangli Miraj Kupwad Municipal ... on 12 January, 2023
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
3-WP-14675-2022
Pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 14675 OF 2022
Aaradhya Infrastructure .. Petitioner
Vs.
Sangli Miraj Kupwad Municipal
Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents
Ms. Samiksha Karani for petitioner.
Mr. Vikram Walawalkar i/by Mr. Amey C. Sawant for
respondent nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Chetan Patil for respondent no.4.
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ. &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE: JANUARY 12, 2023
P.C.:
1. The petitioner had filled in the tender pursuant to the
tender notice issued by the respondents/Corporation on 4th
May, 2022. The tender was for supply of drivers.
2. The respondents/Corporation required the drivers for
operating vehicles for waste management. The petitioner was
L-2. The work order is issued in favour of respondent no.4.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though the petitioner was L-2, on 1st July, 2022 a resolution
was passed by the respondents/Corporation to award the
work to the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the
respondents/Corporation could not have cancelled the said
resolution by passing a subsequent resolution on 4th August,
2022. The respondents/Corporation do not have the authority
to pass a subsequent resolution. The learned counsel submits
3-WP-14675-2022
that the copy of the resolution dated 1st July, 2022 is not
handed over to the petitioner. It is improper to cancel the
earlier resolution. The learned counsel relies upon the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of AG
Enviro Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2019 (4) Mh.L.J. 667.
4. The learned counsel further submits that as the
resolution was passed, the petitioner had taken further steps
of recruiting the drivers. The said aspect needs to be
considered. The further submission is made that in case of
other tenderers also the resolution was passed which was
cancelled. Aggrieved person has filed writ petition bearing
No. 11474 of 2022 (R. K. Services, through Proprietor
Ravindra Ganpati Kempwade vs. Sangli Miraj and
Kupwad City Corporation & Ors.) and this Court under
order dated 26th September, 2022 has issued notice.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the
petitioner was L-2. In view of that, resolution dated 4th
August, 2022 was passed awarding work contract to L-1, who
was also qualified. It had issued a legal notice. The work
order is allotted to L-1 (Respondent No.4) on 22nd November,
2022.
7. We have considered the submissions.
8. It appears from the submissions and the pleadings that
the petitioner was L-2. Normally, a contract would be
awarded to L-1. The work order is allotted to L-1 (Respondent
No.4).
9. Admittedly, no work order is issued in favour of the
petitioner, nor any agreement is entered into with the
3-WP-14675-2022
petitioner. Normally, the work order has to be awarded to L-1.
The same has been done in the present case.
10. In the case of AG Enviro Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.,
Thane (Supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner
the facts were completely different. In the said case, the
parties had arrived at a concluded contract. The petitioner
therein had complied with all the terms and conditions and
had submitted the performance bank guarantee. The
agreement was a concluded agreement between the parties
and thereafter the respondents therein sought to resile. In
that context, the Court held that the same is not permissible.
11. In case of R. K. Services (Supra), this Court considered
that the tender was for a period of one year, but erroneously
the work order was being issued for a period of three or nine
years. The Court has, therefore, restrained the Corporation
from issuing the contract for a period of more than one year.
However, this Court in the said case observed that the
Corporation is at liberty to issue work order at the first
instance for a period of one year only.
12. In the present case, the tender is for a period of nine
years.
13. As no concluded contract came into existence between
the petitioner and the respondents/Corporation and
admittedly the work order is issued in favour of L-1, the
petitioner is L-2, we do not find any error in the action of the
respondents/Corporation.
14. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Digitally
signed by
PRAVIN
PRAVIN DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT Date:
10:33:54
+0530
