Bombay High Court
V M Matere Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ... on 16 August, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:32846-DB
906-WP.11127.2024
Jvs.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11127 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 23459 OF 2024
V. M. Matere Infrastructures India }
Pvt. Ltd. } Petitioner
versus
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal }
Corporation & Ors. } Respondents
Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate with Mr.Rupesh
Geete, Ms. Payal Vardhan, Mr.Aditya Mhase and
Ms.Priya Dangat i/b. Mr. Manish Kelkar for petitioner.
Mr. Kedar Dighe for respondents 1 to 3 (PCMC).
CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. &
AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATE: 16th AUGUST 2024
P.C.:
1. Affidavit in reply to the interim application, filed by learned
counsel representing Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
(respondent no. 2) [hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-
Corporation"], is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Damle, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Dighe, learned counsel representing the respondent-
Corporation.
3. Rule.
906-WP.11127.2024
4. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final
disposal.
5. Under challenge in these proceedings, instituted under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is an order dated 29th
July 2024, whereby the petitioner-company has been
disqualified in the tender process undertaken for development of
fire station near Hedgewar Bhavan and doing other ancillary
works in Ward No. 15. Admittedly, the petitioner's bid was found
to be technically responsive and on opening of the financial bid,
the petitioner's bid was found to be lowest as is apparent from a
perusal of the impugned order dated 29th July 2024 itself.
However, despite having been declared to be L-1, the petitioner
has been disqualified for the reason that in respect of certain
earlier works allotted to the petitioner, the petitioner has failed
to complete the works within the stipulated time.
6. By the impugned order, the petitioner has further been
debarred from participation in further tenders. It also provides
that L-2 in the subject tender shall be considered as L-1.
7. The respondent-Corporation has filed an affidavit in reply,
however, from a perusal of the said affidavit, it is apparent that
so far as debarring the petitioner from participation in future
tenders is concerned, the petitioner was never given any
opportunity of hearing nor was any show-cause notice issued to
the petitioner to put-forth its case. As has been held in various
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, including the latest
pronouncement in the case of the Blue Dreamz Advertising
Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.,
[Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11682 of 2018] decided
906-WP.11127.2024
on 7th August 2024, any order of blacklisting or debarment since
visits the party concerned with very adverse civil consequences,
hence, no such order of debarment or blacklisting can be passed
without giving opportunity of hearing to the party concerned or
without issuing any show-cause notice wherein the reasons for
intended action of blacklisting or debarment should be
disclosed.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has also
failed to bring to the notice of the Court any relevant document
or any other evidence from where it can be inferred that before
passing the order of debarment, the petitioner was given an
opportunity of hearing or it was issued any show-cause notice
as per the requirement of law.
9. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to hold that the
impugned order dated 29th July 2024, so far as it debars the
petitioner from participation in the tenders is concerned, the
same is not sustainable. We, thus, quash the said portion of the
impugned order dated 29th July 2024 and permit the
respondent-Corporation to take decision afresh by giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and issuing a show-
cause notice disclosing therein the grounds of intended action.
10. So far as the other part of the impugned order dated 29 th
July 2024, whereby the petitioner has been disqualified despite
having been declared to be L-1, is concerned, learned counsel
for the respondent-Corporation has stated that in case the
petitioner submits an undertaking to the Municipal
Commissioner of the Corporation concerned for completion of
the earlier works within the stipulated time, its bid can be
considered.
906-WP.11127.2024
11. Accordingly, in respect of this portion of the impugned
order dated 29th July 2024, we permit the petitioner to furnish
the undertaking as aforesaid and once any such undertaking is
furnished, the decision to disqualify the petitioner shall be
reconsidered and a fresh decision in terms of this order
regarding the petitioner's disqualification shall be taken within
three weeks' time from the date the petitioner furnishes the
undertaking.
12. We permit the petitioner to furnish the undertaking within
seven days.
13. It is needless to observe that till re-consideration of the
petitioner's disqualification in the subject tender is concluded,
the respondent-Corporation shall not act upon the subject
tender.
14. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observations and directions. Rule is made absolute in the
aforesaid terms.
15. In the light of the disposal of the writ petition, the interim
application does not survive and stands disposed of as such.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
