Bombay High Court
Rajendra Singh Kiledar Constructions ... vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Dept. Of ... on 20 November, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2025:BHC-NAG:12581-DB
1 wp2982.2025..docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2982 OF 2025
Rajendra Singh Kiledar Constructions
Pvt Ltd, Having its Registered Office
at tikari Link Road, Chandrashekhar Ward,
Betul, Madhya Pradesh through its
Managing Director, Shri Rajendra Singh Killedar ......PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department
of Urban Development - II,
Mantralaya,
Fort Mumbai 400 032
2. The District Collector,
Amravati
3. The Director of Municipal
Administration, 7th Floor,
Belapur Bhavan, Sector 11,
C.B.D. Belapur,
Navi Mumbai 400 614
4.Municipal Council
Morshi through its Chief Officer,
Morshi, Tq. Morshi,
Dist. Amravati.
5. Sadiq and MRV (JV),
having its office at 3rd Floor,
Golden Palace Building,
Dharampeth, Nagpur 440 010
through its Authorized
Representative Shri Mohanish
Manoj Kothari .....RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Amol Patil, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. D.P. Thakare, Addl.GP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State.
Mr. M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
Mr. R.D. Heda, Advocate for respondent No. 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belkhede, PS
2 wp2982.2025..docx
CORAM:- ANIL S. KILOR, &
RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.
RESERVED ON :18.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON :20.11.2025
JUDGMENT (PER : Rajnish R. Vyas)
Heard Mr. Amol Patil, learned Counsel for petitioner, Mr. D.P.
Thakare, learned Addl.GP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. M.I. Dhatrak,
learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Bhushan Mehta, learned
Counsel for respondent No. 5.
2. In this petition, a prayer is made to set aside decision of
respondent No. 4 Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Morshi, dated
10.6.2025, rejecting technical bid of the petitioner. A further declaration
has been sought that petitioner be declared as technically qualified for the
tender. For ready reference, the reasons given by respondent No. 1 for
rejecting technical bid are as under:
"1. paver executed quantity not provided" (page 21)
"2. misleading information is given" (page 21)
A tender was floated by the respondent No. Municipal Council
Belkhede, PS
3 wp2982.2025..docx
for "Morshi City Road Development Project under Nagarothan
Mahabhiyan -Part 2". The estimated cost of tender (page 29) according to
detailed tender notice, dated 2.5.2025 was Rs. 63,10,53,751/-.
3. Since a limited issue regarding rejection for technical bid is
involved, necessary condition at page 32 of the petition is required to be
reproduced, which is as under:
A) A average annual financial turnover during the last 5
years, ending 31st March of the previous financial year
should be at least 75% of the estimated cost.
B) The applicant should have experience: 1. successfully
completed similar works during last five years ending last
day of month previous to the one in which applications are
invited should be either of following:-
1.1 Three similar completed works costing not
less than the amount equal to 40 (forty) percent
of the estimated cost. Or
1.2 Two similar completed works costing not
less than the amount equal to 50(fifty) percent
of the estimated cost. Or
1.3 One similar completed work costing not less
than the amount equal to 80 (eighty) percent of
Belkhede, PS
4 wp2982.2025..docx
the estimated cost.
2. "Similar work" should be as mentioned in
following point no. 3 (as per scope of work for
tender)
4. It is the case of petitioner that according to aforesaid terms and
conditions, more particularly, as per condition No.1.3, one similar
completed work costing not less than amount equal to 80% of the
estimated cost, would be enough material for considering technical bid.
He therefore, states that 80% of estimated cost would be Rs.
50,48,43,001/- (estimated cost is Rs. 63,10,53,751/- and therefore, 80%
would be Rs. 50,48,43,001/-). In order to contend that he has satisfied
condition No.1.3 regarding completion of the work he has invited our
attention to page 263 which is Experience Certificate, issued by Chief
Engineer (NDB), MPRDC, Bhopal. Inviting our further attention to
column 9, which speaks about value of work done upto IPC-34 (Pre-Final)
(BOQ+Variation) is Rs. 104,45,09,156/-. He thus submits that he has
completed the work costing not less than amount equal to 80% of the
estimated cost.
Belkhede, PS
5 wp2982.2025..docx
5. He has further stated that so far as rejection on the ground of
"paver executed quantity not provided" is concerned, same is contrary to
the record since according to Work Done Certificate (page 271) dated
24.9.2024, issued by Executive Engineer, PWD, PIU Division, Betul, the
contractor has completed work of interlock paver block 80 mm=15600
SQM. In order to deal with aforesaid contention, the relevant portion of
tender document is reproduced hereinbelow:
Quantity Certificate for following work quantities executed in
one year at any last five year.
1. DLC (M10/M15 Grade) - 4150 CUM
2. PQC (M30 grade or higher) - 7500 CUM
3. GSB (Grade I/II) 9200 CUM
4. Dowel Bar - 23600 Nos.
5. Paving Block (80 mm/60mm tk) 13700 Sq.m
Thus, according to him, requirement was regarding certificate
for paving block (80 mm/60 mm tk) - 13700 Sqm) executed in one year
stands satisfied by certificate dated 24.9.2024. He has also relied upon
Work Done Certificate, dated 24.9.2024, issued by Executive Engineer,
PWD, PIU Division, Betul, which says that the contractor has completed
the work of paver block 80 mm of 28590, page 272).
Belkhede, PS
6 wp2982.2025..docx
6. So far as ground 2 for rejection of technical bid on the ground
of "misleading information is given", he contends that same is totally vague
which gives unlimited power to respondent authorities to interpret the
tender document in their favour so as to unsuit the bidders.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents have opposed the
petition and has contended that question is regarding interpretation of
terms and conditions of the contract which cannot be decided by this
Court while exercising powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. He further submits that petitioner was rightly
considered technically disqualified as he had no experience. Further,
learned counsel for respondents has relied upon the Work Done Certificate
dated 24.9.2024 (page 271 and 272) and pointed out that it itself would
reveal that the work was not completely done. For ready reference, we are
reproducing relevant portion of Work Done Certificate, which is at pages
271 and 272, as under:
(Page No. 271) Certified that Construction of Const. Of
govt. Exellence Higher Secondary School at Hidil Dist
Betul (C.M. RISE SCHOOL) work was awarded to M/s
Rajendra Singh Kiledar Constructions Pvt Ltd Tikari Link
Belkhede, PS
7 wp2982.2025..docx
Road Chandrashekhar ward Betul (M.P.) vide Ag.
No.08/2023-24 dated 4.6.2023 worth Rs. 2698804 Lakhs
(with GST). The contractor has completed the work 92.2
of Pac amounting to Rs. 2482.89 Lakhs (with GST) up to
31.3.2024.
(Page No. 272) Certified that Const of Govt. Excellance
Higher Secondary School at Amla Dist Betul (C.M. Rise
School) work was awarded to M/s Rajendra Singh Kiledar
Constructions Pvt Ltd Tikari Link Road Chandrashekhar
ward Betul (M.P.) - Vide ag. No. 04/2023-24 dated
30.5.2023 worth Rs. 2805.509 Lakhs (with GST). The
contractor has completed the work 95% amounting to Rs.
2665.23 Lakhs (with GST) up to 22.3.2024.
8. He then invites our attention to page 33 and contends that
what was required is crystal clear from tender document itself as according
to the tender document, "the agency was required to have experience or
successful completion and commissioning of the works listed below with
any Government/Semi Government, Corporation or equivalent
organization". By comparing the aforesaid condition with the Work Done
Certificate, the learned counsel for respondents submits that the work was
never completed as the certificate dated 24.9.2024, at page 271, speaks
Belkhede, PS
8 wp2982.2025..docx
about completion 92.2% of work and certificate at page 272 speaks about
completion of 95% of work. According to him, the said reason was
sufficient since Work Done Certificate was not submitted.
9. In rebuttal, counsel for petitioner states that the condition
regarding providing paving block 80mm-60mm tk - 13700 SqMtr is
satisfied as the certificate at page 271 and 272, more particularly, last
column clearly shows that figures are, 15600 and 28590, which is much
more than 13700 SqMtr. He therefore, states that it was the sufficient
compliance.
10. He further states that had there been any shortfall according to
the respondents, the petitioner could have been very well informed about
the same and the petitioner could have very well complied with it. He has
then invited our attention to Government Resolution dated 17.09.2019
(page 737), issued by Public Works Department, Government of
Maharashtra.
Belkhede, PS
9 wp2982.2025..docx
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments
advanced by the respective parties, so also, have perused documents filed
on record.
12. Dealing last issue first regarding giving of time to cure the
defect and applicability of Government Resolution dated 17.9.2019 is
concerned suffice it to say that the Government Resolution issued by one
department of government cannot bind other department or the local
bodies. In this case, tender is floated by Chief Officer, Municipal Council,
Morshi and therefore, Government Resolution issued by Public Works
Department cannot be a guiding factor.
13. So far as rejection of technical bid on the ground of "paver
executed quantity not provided" is concerned the tender document will
have to be read holistically. As mentioned supra what was required was
successful completion and commissioning of the works. On the face of
certificates produced at page 271 and 272, it would reveal that it was not
the work completion certificate but was work done certificate which further
shows that in certificate at page 271, completed work was 92.2% and in
Belkhede, PS
10 wp2982.2025..docx
certificate at page 272, the work completed was 95%. The contention that
the requirement of paving block - 13700 SqMtr stands satisfied as
certificate shows laying of paver block in 15600SqMtr and 28590 SqMtr,
may seem attractive at first moment but if accepted, would amount to
rewriting terms and conditions of contract, since what was required was
"experience of successful completion and commissioning of the work".
The wisdom of respondent No. 4 in putting such condition cannot be
tested in a writ jurisdiction. In contractual matters, the powers of judicial
review are limited to the cases when the action is arbitrary or tented with
malafides. The petitioner could have challenged the said requirement of
providing completion certificate before participation in tender process and
now after rejection of technical bid, he cannot be allowed to blow hot and
cold by saying that certificate was according to the tender conditions.
14. As far as rejection of technical bid of the petitioner on the
second ground is concerned, it is the contention of the petitioner, as
already noted, that same is totally vague and gives unrestricted power to the
respondent to justify rejection of technical bid on any of the grounds. In
this regard, it is argued by the respondent that the said ground i.e.
Belkhede, PS
11 wp2982.2025..docx
"misleading information is given" is required to be looked from the work
done certificates dated 24.9.2024 (page 271 and 272) which are already
discussed above. The said two certificates speaks about completion of 92.2
and 95 percent of work. If page 278 i.e. annexure I, submitted by the
chartered accountant is perused, it would reveal that it pertains to
"information about work in hand, dated 4.3.2025". The works which are
mentioned in work done certificate dated 24.9.2024 (271 and 272),
according to the respondents, are intentionally not mentioned in the
aforesaid information (page 278). The respondents thus submit that this
amounts to giving misleading information. In tender matters, both the
parties are required to deal with eachother in fair manner. Full disclosure
of information gives the parties to take a call whether to enter into a
contract or not. It is the case of petitioner that aforesaid certificates are of
September 2024 whereas, the information of pending work was submitted
on 4.3.2025, after six months of such certificate. It is submitted that in
between the said two works, were completed.
15. This argument cannot be accepted for the reason that if the
works were completed then why the certificate of completion of work was
not submitted, which was the requirement and non submission of same was
Belkhede, PS
12 wp2982.2025..docx
the reason for rejection of technical bid of the petitioner.
16. Since, petitioner has given misleading information, as is clear
from page 278, the foundation of offer and acceptance is shaken. Thus, we
find that even on the said ground, technical bid was rightly rejected.
17. Since, no case is made out for interference and as we cannot
direct respondent No. 4 to rewrite terms and conditions of contract,
exercising powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India would
not be in the interest of justice, hence, petition is dismissed.
(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner is praying for
continuation of interim relief granted vide order dated 12.6.2025 which is
strongly opposed by learned counsel for respondents.
Since, the matter pertains to tender process for construction of
cement roads, the request for continuation of interim relief is rejected.
(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
Belkhede, PS
