Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Contractor ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Throu. Chief ... on 26 June, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:26040-DB
Megha 5_wpst_19775_2025_fc.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.19775 OF 2025
Maharashtra State Contractor's
Association
through President Shri Suresh
Haribhau Kadu ...Petitioner
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra
through Chief Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
3. The Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
4. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilha Parishad, Pune.
5. The Executive Engineer,
Works Department, South Z.P.,
Pune.
6. The Executive Engineer,
Works Department, North Z.P.,
Pune ...Respondents
______________
Digitally
signed by
MEGHA
Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil i/b. Mr. K.B. Borde for the Petitioner.
MEGHA SHREEDHAR
SHREEDHAR PARAB
PARAB Date:
2025.07.01
11:49:21
+0530
Page No. 1 of 11
26 June 2025
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2025 11:33:51 :::
Megha 5_wpst_19775_2025_fc.docx
Smt. S.D. Vyas, Addl. GP with Smt. V.R. Raje, AGP for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State.
______________
CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated: 26 JUNE 2025.
Judgment (Per Sandeep V. Marne):-
1. The Petition is filed by Maharashtra State
Contractor's Association challenging the Tender Notice Nos.11,
15, 16 and 20 issued by Respondent Nos.5 and 6. It has sought
direction for issuance of fresh tender notice without clubbing of
works. Alternatively, prayer is sought for dilution of eligibility
criteria as per policy of distribution of works.
2. Petitioner claims to be a registered association of
directors. It is registered as a trade union on 7 November 2017.
It is the grievance of the Petitioner-Association that the Zilla
Parishad has issued administrative sanction for construction and
development of school premises in respect of 301 schools located
in various Talukas of Pune District. It is Petitioner's contention
that separate administrative sanction is issued in respect of each
work and that therefore each work needs to be executed
separately. By the impugned Tender Notice Respondent Nos.5
and 6 have clubbed multiple works in respect of which sanction
was issued by order dated 28 May 2025. Petitioner claims that
26 June 2025
Megha 5_wpst_19775_2025_fc.docx
Respondent Nos.5 and 6 ought to have issued separate tender in
respect of each of the works sanctioned vide order dated 28 May
2025. Accordingly, Tender Notice Nos.16 and 20 issued by
Respondent No.5 and Tender Notice Nos.11, 15 and 16 issued by
Respondent No.6 are challenged in the present Petition. Prayer is
sought for issuance of fresh Tender Notices without clubbing of
works. Alternatively, Petitioner has sought dilution of eligibility
criteria corresponding to the policy of distribution of works.
3. We have heard Mr. Gaware Patil, the learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner. He would rely upon Government
Resolution dated 5 April 2023 (GR) by which State Government
has made special provisions to encourage award of contracts to
unemployed educated engineers and labour contract societies.
That the said GR provides for reservation of 40% works for
educated unemployed engineers. That the said GR is aimed at
ensuring that smaller works are allotted preferably to
unemployed engineers. He would therefore submit that if
separate tenders were to be floated in respect of each of the
works sanctioned vide order dated 28 May 2025, the members of
Petitioner's Association would have become eligible to bid in
pursuance of such tenders. That Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have
deliberately floated tenders in respect of combined works with a
view to ensure that members of the Petitioner- Association are
ousted from the tender process on account of non-fulfillment of
eligibility criteria. That the impugned decision is taken
essentially to favour the contractor of choice of the Respondents.
26 June 2025
Megha 5_wpst_19775_2025_fc.docx
He would rely on GR dated 19 September 2017. He would also
submit that once separate administrative sanction is issued in
respect of each work, it is impermissible to float combined tender
for multiple works. He would accordingly pray for setting aside
the impugned tenders.
4. Petition is opposed by Ms. Vyas, the learned
Additional Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. She would
rely upon order dated 22 August 2024 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Petitioner-Association repelling
similar challenge in respect of another tender process. She would
submit that Petitioner has suppressed the position of having
raised similar issue in earlier petitions. That Petitioner-
Association cannot be permitted to file multiple petitions raising
same issue every time when the new tender is floated. She would
submit that combining smaller works into one tender is in the
administrative interest and also a matter of policy in which this
Court may not interfere. She would pray for dismissal of the
Petition.
5. Rival contentions of the parties now fall for our
consideration.
6. The Petitioner-Association has questioned the wisdom
of tendering authority in combining multiple works sanctioned
vide order dated 28 May 2025 into singular tender. By order
dated 28 May 2025, the Chief Officer of Pune Zilla Parishad has
26 June 2025
Megha 5_wpst_19775_2025_fc.docx
granted administrative approval for execution of works in respect
of 301 schools in various Talukas of Pune District to be executed
through respective Executive Engineers. In pursuance of
administrative sanction so issued, Executive Engineer, Works
Department-North published Tender Notice Nos. 16 and 20 for
the year 2025-26. In the Tender Notice No.16, the works
comprising of construction of new class rooms, development of
other physical infrastructure and repair works of schools at
Villages- Varale, Naygaon, Yelghol, Tung, Indori, Navlkh umbre,
Urse, Kusgaon bk, Shivane, Sangwade, Varu, Mahagoan,
Aadhale bk, Tal Maval District Pune, are proposed to be
executed at approximate combined value of Rs.7,85,95,679/-.
Similarly, by Tender Notice No.16, issued by Respondent No.6
the works in respect of several schools in Villages of Taluka -
Baramati, District Pune have been clubbed. Similarly, Executive
Engineer, Works Department-South has also issued Tender
Notice Nos.11, 15 and 16 in respect of schools in Talukas -Shirur,
Khed and Mulshi. Petitioner contends that on account of
clubbing of multiple works into one tender, their members are
unable to fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed in the tender
document and accordingly are ousted from consideration in the
impugned tender process.
7. In our view Petitioner-Association has mixed the issue
of grant of administrative approval with notices inviting tender.
Merely because the Zilla Parishad has indicated value of each
work separately while granting administrative approval dated 28
26 June 2025
Megha 5_wpst_19775_2025_fc.docx
May 2025, there is no obligation on the Zilla Parishad to issue
separate tenders in respect of each work. Perusal of the order
dated 28 May 2025 would indicate that the works in respect of
some of the schools are of minuscule nature and involves
expenditure of extremely smaller amounts. To illustrate, the
administrative sanction for incurring of expenditure of Rs.3.14
lakhs is issued for school at Taje, Taluka-Maval. The tendering
authority has clubbed works to be executed in respect of several
schools into one tender. This is done apparently to achieve
administrative exigency as well as to save the cost of issuing and
processing multiple tenders and to deal with numerous
individual contractors. The tendering authority cannot be
expected to issue 301 tenders and spend time and money on
processing such large number of tenders and also to deal with so
many contractors. In any case, there is no restriction or
prohibition on the tendering authority from combining multiple
works into one tender.
8. Reliance by Petitioner on GR dated 5 April 2023 also
does not cut any ice. By that GR, the percentage of reservation
for qualified unemployed engineers has been increased from 33%
to 40%. The GR merely provides for reservation of certain
category of works and does not put any obligation on the Zilla
Parishad to undertake individual works of smaller amounts by
floating distinct tenders so as to provide opportunity to any
particular class of contractors. Therefore, grant of reservation in
respect of certain works to unemployed engineers cannot be
26 June 2025
Megha 5_wpst_19775_2025_fc.docx
confused with the aspect of permissibility to float singular tender
in respect of multiple works. Reliance by the Petitioner-
Association on the GR dated 5 April 2023 is therefore inapposite.
9. Reliance by Petitioner on GR dated 9 September 2017
is also baseless. The relevant part of the GR reads thus:
3.4 Clubbing of works The work shalt be clubbed together if they are
in one continuous length-of the road. However, no clubbing shall be
resorted to if the works-are distinctly apart from each other and are
not on the same road. For achieving good quality in execution, the
minimum road length shall be 10 Km and in case of building /
maintenance single estimate shall be prepared for one entire
building.
The GR dated 9 September 2017 has no application to the
impugned tender notices, which are issued for execution of works
in the schools and not for execution of road work. The restriction
on preparation of single estimate for entire building is also
inapplicable in the present case.
10. We therefore do not find any valid reason to interfere
in the impugned tender process initiated by Respondent Nos.5
and 6.
11. The matter would have ended here, and we could have
simply dismissed the present Petition after not finding any merit
in the Petition. However, we have noticed a disturbing trend on
the part of the Petitioner- Association in suppressing vital
information from this Court. It appears that Petitioner-
Association has been raising same issue of impermissibility of
clubbing of multiple works into singular tender by filing several
26 June 2025
Megha 5_wpst_19775_2025_fc.docx
Petitions before this Court. It appears that the Petitioner-
Association, through its President -Suresh Haribhau Kadu, had
filed Writ Petition No.11724 of 2024 challenging several Tender
Notices for the year 2024-25 seeking issuance of direction for
floating of individual tender in respect of each work. This Court
dismissed Writ Petition No.11724 of 2024 holding as under:-
7. The tender notices in question, i.e., No.4/2024, 16/2024, and
14/2024/2025, invite bids for new connectivity/upgradation of
roads in the Pune district under the Mukhyamantri Gram
Sadak Yojana (MGSY). Upon perusal of the description of the
work, it is apparent that the work involves roads of short
lengths, less than 5 to 6 kilometers. It is therefore evident
that respondent No.3 has undertaken integrated road
development under MGSY rather than fragmented
development. The policy of integrated road development,
being a fundamental infrastructural policy, cannot, by any
stretch of the imagination, be deemed arbitrary,
discriminatory, or unreasonable. Clubbing, in the present
case, is for the purpose of implementing MGSY as a single
package, wherein various road segments in the area are
grouped together for development or repairs as a unified
package.
12. While dismissing Writ Petition No.11724 of 2024 filed
by the Petitioner-Association, this Court also noted that the
Petitioner-Association had filed Writ Petition No.3583 of 2022
challenging similar tender on the ground of clubbing of works
being contrary to the government policy. Order dated 29 March
2022 passed in Writ Petition No.3583 of 2022, reads thus:-
"9. It would not be out of place to note that one of the
considerations that evidently weighs with the Government is
cost efficiency. Clubbing work is obviously most cost-efficient
than issuing multiple tenders with a differentiation for
26 June 2025
Megha 5_wpst_19775_2025_fc.docx
different classes of bidders. The Petitioners seem unable to
understand this. For a single project, the costs of coordinating
tenders and tender works between different agencies is likely
to be very difficult apart from leading to operational problems
and hugely inflated costs at the public expense."
13. We find that Petitioner had raised same issue of
clubbing of multiple works into singular tender in Writ Petition
Nos. 3583 of 2022 and 11724 of 2024. However, Petitioner has not
disclosed filing of the said two Petitions or orders passed therein
in the present Petition. In our view, orders passed in the said two
Petitions squarely answer the issue raised in the present
Petition. However, though similar issue was involved in the said
Petitions, which have been dismissed by this Court, Petitioner
has chosen to suppress factum of filing of the said two Petitions
as well as orders passed therein. What is more disturbing is the
fact that after Ms. Vyas relied upon order passed in Writ Petition
No.11724 of 2024, instead of admitting mistake of not disclosing
of filing of the said Petitions, an attempt was made to point out
as if the orders passed in the said Petitions have no relevance to
the issue involved in the present Petition. In our view, this Court
has specifically dealt with the issue of clubbing of multiple works
into singular contract while dismissing Writ Petition No.11724 of
2024. It therefore cannot be contended that orders passed in two
earlier Petitions filed by the Petitioner- Association are not
germane to the issue involved in the present Petition. It was also
sought to be contended during the course of arguments that
Petitioner-Association has disclosed filing of the earlier Petitions
and our attention was invited to page 94 of the paper book, at
which page order passed on 21 September 2018 in Writ Petition
26 June 2025
Megha 5_wpst_19775_2025_fc.docx
No.10334 of 2018 has been produced. Thus, the attempt made on
the part of the Petitioner- Association of convincing this Court of
absence of suppression has again turned out to be false as there
is no disclosure about filing of Writ Petition Nos.3583 of 2022
and 11724 of 2024 as well as orders passed therein. Interestingly,
the same person -Mr. Suresh Bhaurao Kadu, acting as a
President of the Petitioner-Association is found to be filing
multiple Petitions raising the same issue by suppressing orders
passed in previous Petitions filed by the Association.
14. The remedy of invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is both
extraordinary as well as discretionary. Such remedy cannot be
permitted to be exercised by a person approaching this Court
with unclean hands by suppressing the relevant information.
Despite this court upholding the act of tendering authority in
clubbing multiple works in a single tender in previous Petitions
filed by Petitioner- Association, it continues to abuse the process
of law by filing fresh petitions, every time a new tender is floated.
Such a tendency on the part of the Petitioner-Association needs
to be nipped in the bud by imposing exemplary cost. After we
expressed that we are proposing to impose costs, an apology was
sought to be tendered in respect of act of suppression and the
Petition was sought to be withdrawn. This is like taking a chance
before the Court by invoking its jurisdiction by suppressing vital
facts and then withdrawing the Petition after being caught. We
deprecate such a course of action and would not permit
26 June 2025
Megha 5_wpst_19775_2025_fc.docx
withdrawal of the Petition after noticing that the Petitioner has
indulged in suppression. We therefore are not permitting
withdrawal of the Petition and instead impose exemplary cost on
the Petitioner-Association for grossly abusing the process of law
by indulging in suppression.
15. The Petition is accordingly dismissed along with
costs of Rs.50,000/- to be recoverable from the president of
Petitioner-Association, Mr. Suresh Haribhau Kadu. The amount
of costs shall be payable to the High Court Legal Services
Authority within a period of four weeks, failing which the same
shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Registry to report
compliance with the directions on 30 July 2025 on which date
the Petition shall be listed under caption 'for compliance'.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
26 June 2025
