Bombay High Court
Opal Construction Throu. Its Manager ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Throu. The Addl ... on 4 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:33261-DB
6-WP-5197-2025.doc
Pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5197 OF 2025
Opal Construction .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate with Mr. T. D.
Deshmukh with Ms. Kajol Punjabi i/by Ronak Utgikar a/w
Meghana Chavan for petitioner.
Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, Govt. Pleader with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar,
Addl. Govt. Pleader and Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for
respondent no.1-State.
Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil a/w Mr. Divyesh K. Jain for respondent
nos.2 to 4.
Mr. Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sidheshwar N.
Biradar, Mr. Tushar Hathiramani, Mr. Dinesh R. Shinde and Mr.
Saurabh Kudekar for respondent no.5.
Digitally
signed by
CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
PRAVIN
PRAVIN DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
PANDIT Date:
2025.08.05
15:05:22
+0530
DATE: 4th AUGUST, 2025
ORAL ORDER [Per Chief Justice] :
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a
direction to the respondent nos.1 to 4 to recall on-going
tender process initiated pursuant to E-Tender Notice
No.9/2023-2024 dated 13th March, 2024 and re-invite bids by
issuing a fresh tender. The petitioner also seeks a direction to
the respondent nos.1 to 4 to stay the process of tender and to
direct them not to issue work order.
6-WP-5197-2025.doc
3. Facts giving rise to filing of the instant writ petition,
briefly stated, are that on 13th March, 2024 a tender was
floated by Executive Engineer, Nira Deoghar Project Division
Sangvi (Bhatghar), Taluka Bhor, Pune for construction of pipe
line distribution network for Nira Deoghar Right Bank Canal.
The tender conditions stipulated that a tenderer was required
to complete the process of Geo Tagging between the period
from 29th March, 2024 to 2nd April, 2024. The petitioner was
unable to complete the process of Geo Tagging in the
aforesaid period. The petitioner, thereupon, submitted a
representation on 30th April, 2024 seeking extension by one
week to enable it to complete the process of Geo Tagging.
4. Thereafter, the Water Resources Department of
Government of Maharashtra on 14th June, 2024 issued a
corrigendum and deleted the requirement of Geo Tagging
under the tenders issued by Water Resources Department.
The corrigendum clearly provided that it shall apply to the
tenders which are yet to be issued. In other words, the
corrigendum was made prospective. In the meantime, the
Superintending Engineer of Maharashtra Krishna Khore
Development Corporation requested the Additional Chief
Secretary for cancellation of tender process on account of
6-WP-5197-2025.doc
availability of insufficient funds. However, it appears that the
tender process was taken further and technical bids were
opened, which indicated that out of seven bidders, bids of
three bidders were found technically qualified. The Assistant
Engineer, Irrigation Department, Pune granted approval for
technical bids scrutiny vide letter dated 12 th February, 2025.
Thereafter the tender summary report was published on 15 th
February, 2025. The financial bids were also opened on 17 th
February, 2025, in which respondent no.5 was found to be L1
and the work order dated 27 th May, 2025 was issued in favour
of respondent no.5.
5. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has
approached this Court.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that
in the light of the corrigendum issued by the State
Government dated 14th June, 2024, the tender should be
recalled. It is further submitted that the condition of Geo
Tagging could not have been made mandatory condition. It is
further submitted that the action of the tendering authority in
prescribing only five days for completing Geo Tagging, though
the tender was pending for a period of eleven months, is
arbitrary and unreasonable. It is further submitted that the
6-WP-5197-2025.doc
petitioner had made an application seeking extension of time
to enable it to complete Geo Tagging. However, the time for
compliance with the condition of Geo Tagging is not extended.
It is also submitted that out of the seven bidders, three
bidders have qualified. That there is fractional difference
between the three bidders who are found to be technically
qualified. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned tender
be quashed and set aside and the tendering authority be
directed to issue fresh tender.
7. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the
respondent no.5 has submitted that the requirement of Geo
Tagging, which was stipulated in the tender was in
consonance with Clause 14 of the Government Resolution
dated 18th October, 2023 issued by the Government of
Maharashtra. It is further submitted that the aforesaid
corrigendum is prospective in nature and does not apply to
the tender in question. It is also pointed out that the
petitioner has not submitted its bid for the tender in question
as the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement of minimum
turn over and the requirement of joint venture under the
agreement. It is also submitted that the petitioner, in
addition, has not fulfilled the criteria of Geo Tagging and,
6-WP-5197-2025.doc
therefore, the petitioner is not qualified to bid in the tender.
Therefore, at the instance of the petitioner, the validity of the
tender condition cannot be examined.
8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in response,
submits that if the petitioner was required to complete the
requirement of Geo Tagging, the petitioner would have met
the other requirements as well.
9. We have considered the submissions made on both sides
and perused the record.
10. It is well settled legal proposition that the author of the
document is the best person to understand and appreciate the
requirements contained in the tender document [See: Caretel
Infotech Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
& Ors., (2019) 14 SCC 81]. It is equally well settled in law
that the Court cannot sit over any judgment on what should
be the eligibility criteria in tender notice [See: Ulfex Limited
vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2022) 1 SCC
165].
11. In the instant case, the tender in question was issued
on 13th March, 2024. Clauses 1.15 to 1.15.5, which are
relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy are
extracted below for the facility of reference:
6-WP-5197-2025.doc
"1.5 GEO-TAGGING- The following standard procedure
(SOP) should be followed for field inspection and Geo-
Tagging.
1.15.1. The bidder or their representative should
require to visit the site to inspect the Canal site, Pipe
distribution network area and other important works like
Road crossing, Nala crossing, before submitting the
tender.
1.15.2. Following work places are fixed for geo-
tagging.
Sr. Latitude Longitude Detail of location
No.
1 17 o 59' 20"N 74o 18'20" E At. Mulikwadi, Tal. Phaltan, Dist.
Satara
2 17 o 56'15"N 74o 23'54"E At. Kurwali (kh.), Tal. Phaltan,
Dist. Satara
3 17 o 56'59"N 74o 30'49" E At. Wadale, Tal. Phaltan, Dist.
Satara
1.1.1. The Geo-Tagging should be carried out by the
bidder during period from Dt. 29/03/2024 to Dt.
02/04/2024.
1.15.4 Geo-Tagging should be done by the
bidder himself or by his authorised
representative. It shall be mandatory for the
bidder or their authorised representative to
mention the date and time of the visit along with
self-attestation on certificate of Geo-Tagging
along with Geo-Tagging photographs at each site
location mentioned in 1.15.2 and submits with
Envelop No.1
1.15.5 It is mandatory for the bidder to submit the
above Geo-Tagged phot with Geo Tagging certificate in
Envelope No.1 of tender document otherwise his
Envelope No.2 will not be opened & his tender will not
be considered."
The aforesaid conditions contained requirement of Geo
Tagging. The petitioner apparently did not have any
grievance about the tender condition requiring Geo Tagging by
6-WP-5197-2025.doc
the bidders. It did not write to the tendering authority
complaining about the condition of Geo Tagging. It also did
not express any difficulty about conduct of Geo Tagging within
the prescribed period from 29th March, 2024 to 2nd April, 2024.
Long after expiry of the prescribed period for Geo Tagging,
petitioner thought of addressing communication dated 30 th
April, 2024. In this communication also, the petitioner did not
raise any grievance about Geo Tagging tender condition. The
petitioner requested for extension of time limit for conduct of
Geo Tagging by referring to the corrigendum dated 19 th June,
2024. The said corrigendum dated 19 th June, 2024 had
absolutely no relevance to the tender condition of Geo
Tagging. It appears that one proposed bidder - M/s. Patel
Infrastructure Limited, Gujarat had requested for extension of
time limit for submission of bids vide letter dated 4 th April,
2024. Acting on the said representation, the tendering
authority issued corrigendum dated 19th April 2024 only
extending the last date for submission of bids till 6 th May,
2024. The petitioner, who had never shown any interest in
either participating in the tender process or making any
attempt to conduct Geo Tagging during window period from
29th March, 2024 to 2nd April, 2024, sought to use issuance of
6-WP-5197-2025.doc
corrigendum dated 19th April, 2024 for the purpose of seeking
extension of time for conduct of Geo Tagging. In the said
letter, petitioner did not disclose as to why it did not conduct
Geo Tagging between 29th April, 2024 to 2nd April, 2024. The
pretext of deployment of bouncers raised during the course of
oral submissions is conspicuously absent in the
communication dated 30th April, 2024.
12. No action was taken on petitioner's letter dated 30 th
April, 2024 and the tendering authority did not extend the
time for conduct of Geo Tagging. Petitioner allowed the last
date for submission of bid to expire but did not submit its bid.
13. The petitioner now seeks to take benefit of the
corrigendum dated 14th June, 2024, which reads thus:
"GOVERNMENT CORRIGENDUM: -
Procedure for tender to be adopted by Water
Resources Department, was issued vide Government
Resolution dated 18.10.2023. The point No.4 in regard
to geo tagging to be done by the bidder has been
cancelled. Therefore, all other consequential provisions
made thereunder are hereby called.
This change has been made applicable to the
bids/tenders which have been issued from the date of
issuance of this Corrigendum.
The implementation of this corrigendum will be
made applicable from the date of it's issuance.
This Government Corrigendum will be made
available on the website of Government of Maharashtra
www.maharashtra.gov.in and it's code no.
6-WP-5197-2025.doc
202461415522255227. This corrigendum has been
issued by attested digital signature.
Issue and per orders and in the name of
Governor of Maharashtra."
From the perusal of the aforesaid corrigendum, it is
evident that it is prospective in nature and does not apply to
the tender in question. Apart from the fact that the
corrigendum is prospective in nature, issuance thereof does
not create any cause of action in petitioner's favour to file the
present petition as it never complained about imposition of
Geo Tagging condition in the tender document. The petitioner,
in the instant petition, has neither chosen to challenge the
authority of the respondent nos.1 to 4 in prescribing the
impugned condition nor has challenged the impugned
condition. It is pertinent to note that the tender was issued on
13th March, 2024. The condition of Geo Tagging was required
to be complied by the petitioner between 29th March, 2024 to
2nd April, 2024. The petitioner submitted representation on
30th April, 2024 seeking a week's time to enable it to comply
with the condition of Geo Tagging. Thereafter, the petitioner
did not approach this Court. The petitioner waited till 15 th
April, 2025, on which date the writ petition was filed. The
conduct of the petitioner is one of a fence sitter. The pretext
6-WP-5197-2025.doc
cited for non filing of the petition in a timely manner of
proposal for cancellation of tender process is completely
misplaced. The tender process was not sought to be cancelled
on account of issuance of corrigendum dated 14 th June, 2024.
It appears that there was some administrative difficulty in
allocating budget for execution of the work which is a reason
why proposal was submitted on 2nd July, 2024 for cancellation
of tender process. However, it appears that the tendering
authority has gone ahead with the tender process by
technically evaluating seven bids received and thereafter
subjecting the three eligible bidders for financial evaluation.
14. The petitioner has neither participated in the tender
process nor has demonstrated before us as to how it fulfills
the other eligibility criteria of turnover as well as joint venture
arrangement.
15. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any
merit in the writ petition. The same fails and is hereby
dismissed.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
