Bombay High Court
Ms Omkar Construction Through Its ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 4 October, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:27982-DB
wp-2605.25+
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2605 OF 2025
M/s. Omkar Construction,
Through its Proprietor,
Shri Dadarao Shahuji Dhage,
Age-53 years, Occu:Proprietor/Business,
R/o-Nanded, Taluka and District-Nanded.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
2) The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Division,
Nanded, District-Nanded,
3) The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division,
Nanded, District-Nanded.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2601 OF 2025
M/s. Omkar Construction,
Through its Proprietor,
Shri Dadarao Shahuji Dhage,
Age-53 years, Occu:Proprietor/Business,
R/o-Nanded, Taluka and District-Nanded.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
wp-2605.25+
2
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
2) The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Division,
Nanded, District-Nanded,
3) The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division,
Nanded, District-Nanded.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2602 OF 2025
M/s. Omkar Construction,
Through its Proprietor,
Shri Dadarao Shahuji Dhage,
Age-53 years, Occu:Proprietor/Business,
R/o-Nanded, Taluka and District-Nanded.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
2) The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Division,
Nanded, District-Nanded,
3) The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division,
Nanded, District-Nanded.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
wp-2605.25+
3
WRIT PETITION NO.2603 OF 2025
M/s. Omkar Construction,
Through its Proprietor,
Shri Dadarao Shahuji Dhage,
Age-53 years, Occu:Proprietor/Business,
R/o-Nanded, Taluka and District-Nanded.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
2) The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Division,
Nanded, District-Nanded,
3) The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division,
Nanded, District-Nanded.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2604 OF 2025
M/s. Omkar Construction,
Through its Proprietor,
Shri Dadarao Shahuji Dhage,
Age-53 years, Occu:Proprietor/Business,
R/o-Nanded, Taluka and District-Nanded.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
wp-2605.25+
4
2) The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Division,
Nanded, District-Nanded,
3) The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division,
Nanded, District-Nanded.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Dnyaneshwar S. Bagul Advocate for Petitioner in all
these Petitions.
Mr. V.M. Kagne, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in all
these Petitions.
...
CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
DATE: 4th OCTOBER 2025
JUDGMENT [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned
counsel for the appearing parties finally, by consent.
2. All these Petitions were heard on 4 th October 2025 and the
operative order was pronounced on the same day and the
reasons are given on 6th October 2025.
3. The petitioner in all these matters is same, who is
challenging the various tender processes wherein it had annexed
wp-2605.25+
same documents and its bid has been rejected on the same
grounds in all these matters and therefore, we would like to
dispose of all the matters together in this common Judgment to
avoid the repetition and for the sake of brevity.
4. The petitioner is a reputed contractor from Nanded and
had undertaken the contract of various works through tenders
floated by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and completed the same.
Documents to the extent of the past experience of the petitioner
and its successful completion of the work have been placed on
record. It is stated that in respect of all those completed works,
there was absolutely no complaint. The respondent authorities
published tender on 14th August 2023 which was relating to
fifteen different works. But the petitioner had participated only in
two tender works. The process in respect of that tender went on
26th August 2023 to 10 th September 2023. On 25th October 2023
the technical and financial bid was opened and the petitioner was
found eligible. The value of the tender work was more than
Rs.12 to 14 Crores. The petitioner contends that the
Superintending Engineer demanded an extraneous consideration
for allotting the tender and therefore, the petitioner had lodged
First Information Report (fort short "the FIR) under Section 7
and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the
wp-2605.25+
Superintending Engineer, on 2 nd November 2023, vide Crime
No.403 of 2023. The said Superintending Engineer was arrested
on 27th December 2023 and was released on bail by this Court
later on. He was placed under suspension and the departmental
inquiry has been initiated against him. Though the petitioner's
bid was accepted by the Chief Engineer, the work order was not
issued and therefore the petitioner had approached this Court by
filing Writ Petition No.13841 of 2024. In the meantime the
respondents had published another tender on 13th October 2023
and the procedure was to be completed between 13 th October
2023 to 28th October 2023. The petitioner had submitted his bid
on 28th October 2023. Again another tender was published on
16th October 2023 i.e. third tender, in which also the petitioner
had participated. The respondents had failed to open the said
tenders, therefore, again the petitioner had approached this
Court by filing Writ Petition No.3098 of 2024. The said Writ
Petition came to be disposed of on 26 th March 2024 with
directions to respondents to open the tender of the petitioner. In
the meantime the Chief Engineer had submitted a proposal to
the Additional Chief Secretary, requesting the blacklisting of the
petitioner for filing fabricated documents in tender notice / work,
which was allotted to the petitioner in the year 2022-23, by
wp-2605.25+
letter dated 23rd February 2024. Even the respondents had
stopped the payment of running bills to the petitioner by 26 th
February 2024 and therefore, the petitioner approached this
Court once again by filing Writ Petition No.2432 of 2024. In the
meantime the respondents had opened the tenders and rejected
the technical bid of the petitioner on 3rd April 2024, on the
ground that the proposal of the petitioner for blacklisting is
submitted to the State Government. Once again the petitioner
approached this Court by filing Writ Petition Nos. 3848 of 2024,
3905 of 2024 and 3907 of 2024. The petitioner contends that it
it was blacklisted by the respondents without issuing any show-
cause notice, by order dated 21 st June 2024. The said order of
blacklisting was challenged by filing Civil Application No.6756 of
2024 in Writ Petition No.2432 of 2024. This Court had stayed the
order of blacklisting the petitioner, by order dated 10 th July 2024.
In the said order, this Court had directed the respondents to
proceed with and conclude the tender process by allowing the
petitioner to participate and not to reject his bid only on the
ground that the petitioner has been blacklisted. When there was
no sign of further progress in the matter, the petitioner filed
Contempt Petition No.1 of 2025, in which this Court had issued
notices. The fourth tender came to be published by the
wp-2605.25+
respondents on 12th February 2024, which was in respect of
twenty three different works. The petitioner participated in four
tender works. The bids for the other works were opened and the
work orders have also been given except four works in which the
petitioner participated. When again the respondents were not
taking any steps, the petitioner approached this Court by filing
Writ Petition No.4206 of 2024. During the pendency of that Writ
Petition, again E-tender i.e. fifth tender was published on 1 st
August 2024 and then the petitioner had participated in all nine
works from Serial Nos. 3 to 11. The pre-bid meeting was held.
Before the last date of submission of bid, every document was
uploaded by the petitioner. The bid was to be opened on 12 th
August 2024. Since the respondents failed to open the said
tenders, the petitioner once again approached this Court by filing
Writ Petition Nos. 9284 of 2024 and 9285 of 2024. On 20 th
August 2024, the respondents have registered the FIR bearing
Crime No.338 of 2024, against the petitioner with Shivaji Nagar
Police Station, Nanded alleging submission of forged documents
in the tender process which was completed in the year 2023.
This Court while disposing of Writ Petition Nos. 4206 of 2024,
9284 of 2024 and 9285 of 2024, directed the authorities to open
the technical bid subject to the terms and condition of the tender
wp-2605.25+
document. In the said order, this Court had expressed
displeasure on the action of the authorities. It was observed that
the action of the respondent authorities is on the basis of bias
against the petitioner.
5. The petitioner contends that respondent authorities are
deliberately adopting such tactics in order to see that the
petitioner does not get any scope in the process and does not
get any tender. The respondent authorities had decided to open
the tender and then had taken care that it should not be allotted
to the petitioner. This is in view of the annoyance of the
respondent authorities against the petitioner. The authorities had
issued notice to the petitioner on 14 th February 2025 and
directed the petitioner to submit valid SCADA certificate in
respect of Fully Automatic Microprocessor based PLC with SCADA
enabled with reversible Drum Type Mixer / Concrete Batch Mix
Plant (Pan Mixer) + Transit Mixer, issued by Automation Manifold
Services Private Limited, Nagpur or Vasundhara IT Private
Limited, Pune. The petitioner was directed to submit those
documents on or before 1.30 p.m. of 17 th February 2025. There
was Saturday (non-working Saturday for Government) on 15 th
February 2025 and on 16 th February 2025 it was Sunday. The
wp-2605.25+
petitioner was issued with notice just to show that valid
opportunity of hearing was given to him. After receiving the
requisite documents, the petitioner submitted those documents
before the respondent authorities. One copy was given physically
and another was sent through E-mail. In spite of this the bid of
the petitioner has been rejected on following three grounds:-
Sr. Ground
No.
(I) The documents attached with the tender document in
respect of transit mixer belongs to Drushti Enterprises and
not of the petitioner.
(II) The authorities have registered First Information Report
against the petitioner under Section 420, 464, 467, 468,
471 of the Indian Penal Code vide FIR No.338 of 2024
with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Nanded.
(III) The hot mix plant of the petitioner is sealed by the Forest
Department and the same is intimated to the Public Works
Department on 14.02.2025.
6. The petitioner has therefore, approached this Court
challenging rejection of all the bids on the same reason.
7. The learned AGP relies on the affidavit filed by Mr.
Ramkrushna Limbraj Galdhar, the Executive Engineer, Public
Works Division, Nanded, Taluka and District-Nanded, which came
to be filed in Writ Petition No.2605 of 2025. It is stated that the
wp-2605.25+
petitioner had attached documents only in respect of its plant or
location of machinery at Pimpalkautha, Taluka-Mudkhed, District-
Nanded. The SCADA certificate attached by the petitioner issued
by the Assistant Chief Engineer, Mechanical, had the validity
from 23rd May 2023 to 22nd May 2024. The tender in question
was to be filled in during the period from 1 st August 2024 to 9th
August 2024 and therefore, a fresh certificate covering the
period was required. However, prior to that the said ready mix
concrete plant was already sealed by the Forest authorities and
was not operational. This fact was suppressed by the petitioner.
In response to the show-cause notice dated 14 th February 2025,
the petitioner then submitted the SCADA certificate in respect of
ready mix concrete plant located at Gut No.107/2, Hadoli, at
Khedkarwadi, Post-Malakoli, Taluka-Loha, District-Nanded,
without informing that SCADA certificate for ready mix plant was
being submitted to a different location as compared to the ready
mix plant offered along with tender documents and without
explaining as to how, when the ready mix plant was already
sealed / seized and was not operational, the same was offered.
Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner is in breach of integrity
pact.
wp-2605.25+
8. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Bagul for the petitioner and
learned AGP Mr. Kagne for the respondents.
9. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us
through the observations by this Court in the earlier Petitions
and submitted that this Court had already opined that the
respondents' attitude towards the petitioner is bias and almost in
the revengeful manner the FIR has been lodged against the
petitioner. In the tender document, Condition No.12 (d) made it
compulsory for each contractor to demonstrate the availability of
the following key and critical equipment should be owned or on
hire by the contractor and be actually in his possession and
available exclusively for the work. In all nine items were covered
and for the purpose of present matters, first machinery is
important i.e. "Fully automatic micro processor based PLC with
SCADA enabled with reversible drum type mixer/concrete batch
mix plant (pan mixer) + Transit Mixer." The said nine items were
as under:-
1. Fully automatic micro processor 1 (One) Owned
based PLC with SCADA enabled
with reversible drum type
mixer/concrete batch mix plant
(pan mixer) + Transit Mixer
2. Vibratory roller 1 (One) Owned
3. Truck/Tipper 02 (Two) (Owned)
wp-2605.25+
4. Soil Compactor 02 (Two) (Owned)
5. Excavator One No. (Owned/Hired)
6. Motor Grader One No. (Owned/Hired)
7. Plate Vibrator 1 (One)( Owned)
8. Concrete Paver 1 (One) (Owned)
9. Needle Vibrator 02 (Two) (Owned)
10. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner
that such plant/machinery, referred at Sr. No.1 above, which was
required was only one in number. In fact as regards the transit
mixures, along with the tender document the petitioner had
provided the record of the vehicles maintained by R.T.O. Office
and all of them were standing in the name of the petitioner
proprietor. There is no objection for the other documents. But in
respect of the SCADA certificate and the plant, the E-mail was
given by respondent authorities on 14 th February 2025 thereby
granting time only till 1.30 p.m. of 17 th February 2025, to explain
the short comings. In its Government Resolution, the
Government of Maharashtra dated 7 th March 2019----- had taken
some decisions and clarified the position in respect of E-tenders
with Public Works Department. Clause 2 states as follows:-
" 2- c&;kpnk yxrP;k iwoZ dkyko/khr ik= Bjysyk da=kVnkj
fdaok ,[kknh fufonk m?kM.;kosGh ik= vlysY;k da=kVnkj R;kp
wp-2605.25+
fufonk lwpusrhy m?kM.;kr vkysY;k@;s.kk&;k nql&;k
fufonkosGh vik= Bjfo.;kr ;srks] v'kk da=kVnkjkaph fufonk
fdjdksG dkj.kkLro ¼tls dh] PTC, Machinery, vk;dj
dkxni=s, Similar work condition b-½ vik= d# u;s-
v';k da=kVnkjkauh R;kaph iwohZP;k Online fufonkaph dkxni=s
miyC/k dsY;kl rh iMrkGwu ik= Bjfo.;kckcr dGokos o
vkfFkZd fyQkQk dz-2 m?kMkok- ;kckcr v'kk vk'k;kps vkns'k
ek- mPp U;k;ky;kus lq/nk fuxZfer dsys vkgsr- "
11. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner
that thereby it was stated that an opportunity should be given to
the contractor to explain the facts. Further by way of another
Government Resolution dated 17 th September 2019, it has been
stated that duration of 8 to 15 days should be given to the
contractor to explain. However, in this case only 3 days were
given and then when along with the communication dated 17 th
February 2025, the petitioner had annexed the certificate by
Vasundhara IT Private Limited, that the petitioner's plant located
at Gut No.107/2, Hadoli, at Khedkarwadi, Post-Malakoli, Taluka-
Loha, District-Nanded, was successfully installed SCADA system
and necessary training regarding operation of SCADA system
and troubleshooting has been given to the plant and site
operators. That document was not considered at all by the
respondents and one of the ground on which the tender has
wp-2605.25+
been rejected is the same. The outcome of the said FIR by the
respondents against the petitioner, was already before the
respondent authorities, as this Court in the earlier Writ Petition
had made observations regarding the same. When R.T.O.
documents in respect of vehicle MH-26-BE-8134 were produced,
the respondent authorities ought not to have gone to some App
and check the ownership. All these activities those were carried
out by the respondents were with mala fide intention as the
petitioner had lodged the FIR against the Superintending
Engineer in which he was arrested and was required to be
suspended.
12. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, in support of his
submissions, relies upon the decisions in the case of, State of
Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Uttar Pradesh State Bridge
Corporation Limited and another, (2022) 16 SCC 633, Michigan
Rubber (India) Limited vs. State of Karnataka and others,
(2012) 8 SCC 216, State of Punjab and others vs. Mehar Din,
(2022) 5 SCC 648, Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. and another,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1942 , and submits that though this Court
has powers to take judicial review of the tender, however, the
wp-2605.25+
petitioner has demonstrated that the administrative decision to
reject the bid of the petitioner was tainted with mala fides and it
was intended to favour someone. The action was arbitrary and
without following the principles of natural justice and therefore,
the interference is required. This Court had passed the order of
not to issue work order when the matter was taken up on the
first date and the said interim relief is in operation till today.
13. Per contra, the learned AGP vehemently submitted that the
rejection of the bids of the petitioner is not on the point that it
was blacklisted or it had lodged the report against the
Superintending Engineer, under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In clear terms the respondent authorities have stated that the
tenders of the petitioner came to be rejected on three grounds,
as aforesaid. Even if we say that ground Nos. 1 and 2 may not
be considered, then yet as regards third ground or situation,
the fact remains that along with the tender documents
when the list of the documents has been uploaded, they
were all in respect of the plant of the petitioner
at Pimpalkautha, Taluka-Mudkhed, District-Nanded. The Forest
Department had sealed the said plant on 23 rd July
2024. Documents annexed along with the affidavit-in-reply
wp-2605.25+
would show that the said plant was seized by the Forest
Department. The petitioner had the knowledge that it was not in
possession of the said plant on the date of the tender, but it had
not uploaded the plant documents issued by Vasundhara IT
Private Limited or had not taken the SCADA certificate from
Assistant Chief Engineer, Mechanical. The certificate which
petitioner has annexed, copy of which is at page No.264, is in
respect of plant at Pimpalkautha, Taluka-Mudkhed, District-
Nanded and the said certificate clearly states that the validity of
the certificate is for one year only i.e. from 23 rd May 2023 to 22nd
May 2024. The tenders in the present matters have been issued
after the validity period of the said certificate. Page No.263 is the
statement-II dealing with the details of the plant and machinery
immediately available with the tenderer for this work. The entire
machinery and plant which was at Pimpalkautha was shown by
the petitioner and therefore, when this communication was
received by the Assistant Engineer, Class-I, Public Works
Division, Mudkhed, the respondents have given the E-mail on
14th February 2025. In reply the petitioner gave the certificate
issued by Vasundhara IT Private Limited, Pune, which was in
respect of another plant at Hadoli, at Khedkarwadi, Post-
Malakoli, Taluka-Loha, District-Nanded, which was without the
wp-2605.25+
certificate. The petitioner had the knowledge that the plant at
Pimpalkautha was not in its immediate possession, still by
suppressing the facts that it has been seized by the Forest
Department, the petitioner has uploaded those documents.
Under such circumstance, for the suppression of those
documents and for ground No.3 especially, the bid of the
petitioner has been rightly rejected.
14. Before proceeding to the analysis of the facts, we would
like to consider the legal position. I n M/s. N.G. Projects Limited
vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and others, [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302] , in
which the earlier decisions have been taken note of and it
has been observed that :-
"23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the
Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision
over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to
accept the bid of a tenderer. The court does not have the
expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the
present-day economic activities of the State and this
limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even
more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving
technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary
expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of
the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass
in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether
the decision-making process is after complying with the
procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the
wp-2605.25+
Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the
tender has been granted in a mala fide manner, still the
Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender
but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the
wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of
the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender
leads to additional costs on the state and is also against
public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer
twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by
being deprived of the infrastructure for which they present-
day Governments are expected to work."
15. In Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517,
[which has also been relied upon in State of Madhya Pradesh and
another vs. Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corporation Limited and
another, (supra)], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
"22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to
prevent arbitrariness, irrationality; unreasonableness, bias
and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or
decision is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice
or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial review is
invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts,
certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract
is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and
awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions.
Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If
the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is
in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of
judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or
error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out.
The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be
invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public
wp-2605.25+
interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or
contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a
civil Court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with
imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry,
to make mountains out of molehills of some
technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and
persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial
review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either
interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or
delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may
increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a Court
before interfering in tender or contractual matters in
exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the
following questions :
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision
made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour
someone;
or
Whether the process adopted or decision made is so
arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the decision
is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and
in accordance with relevant law could have reached";
(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be no
interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting
or imposition of penal consequences on a
tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse
(allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and
franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require
a higher degree of fairness in action."
16. In State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Uttar
wp-2605.25+
Pradesh State Bridge Corporation Limited and another,
(supra), a Three-Judge Bench decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6
CC 651, was considered, wherein the parameters of judicial
review were laid down in Paragraph No.94, as under:-
"94 . The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in
administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely
reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the
administrative decision. If a review of the administrative
decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision,
without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to
judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the
realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept
the tender or award the contract is reached by process of
negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such
decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other
words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for
an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere
or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must
not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle
of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above)
wp-2605.25+
but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or
actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative
burden on the administration and lead to increased and
unbudgeted expenditures."
16. The decision in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6
CC 651, (supra) has also been relied in the decision in Michigan
Rubber (India) Limited vs. State of Karnataka and others,
(supra). All these cases have also been noted in State of Punjab
and others vs. Mehar Din, (supra).
17. Thus, taking into consideration the well settled law on
this point, we have limited scope. We have to see whether
the petitioner has demonstrated that the petitioner was
eligible, as it had complied with all the tender requirements,
otherwise the course is open to the petitioner as aforesaid
in M/s. N.G. Projects Limited (Supra) and Jagdish Mandal,
(supra).
18. We would like to deal with the facts simply without
considering the fact that there was an order of blacklisting of the
petitioner because the rejection of the bids of the petitioner is
wp-2605.25+
not on that point. The first ground on which the rejection of
technical bids is the documents attached with the tender papers
in respect of transit mixer belongs to Drushti Enterprises and not
of the petitioner. Here it is to be noted that Condition No.1 is for
two machinery i.e. SCADA plant + transit mixer and it appears
that along with the tender, the documents in respect of about
five transit mixers have been given. Therefore, rejection only in
respect of one vehicle, which was then found to be belonging to
or in the name of Drushti Enterprises, on some App, was not
justified. When the documents of R.T.O. have been filed, then if
at all there was to be an inquiry, it should have been with the
R.T.O. office and not on some private App.
19. The second ground on which the bid has been rejected is
that the authorities have registered First Information Report
against the petitioner vide Crime No.338 of 2024 with
Shivjinagar Police Station, Nanded. Now, unless it is
demonstrated that some documents have been used by the
petitioner which are at present, alleged to be fraudulent, in these
tenders also, the consideration of FIR was not justified. Even in
the affidavit-in-reply, there is no specific mention that which
same document or which same forged document was used by
wp-2605.25+
the petitioner in these tenders, involved in all these petitions.
Therefore, the rejection of the bid on this point was not justified.
20. The third ground is regarding seizure or seal to the plant at
Pimpalkautha, Taluka-Mudkhed, District-Nanded by the Forest
Department. In fact there is no dispute on this point by the
petitioner. The petitioner has not stated that the said plant was
not seized or sealed on 23 rd July 2024, by the Forest
Department. Upon query, the learned Advocate for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner has filed application before the
appropriate authority for de-sealing or return of the property /
plant and that application is still pending. As per the tender
condition No.12(d), such fully automatic micro processor based
PLC with SCADA enabled with reversible drum type
mixer/concrete batch mix plant (pan mixer) + transit mixer plant
should be of the ownership of the contractor and it should not be
on hire. It is also mentioned in the said condition that such
critical equipment should be in actual possession of the
contractor and available exclusively for the work at the time of
submission of tender. Certainly, at the time of submission of the
tender that was floated, bearing No.10/2024-2025, on 1 st August
2024, the said plant was not within the possession of the
wp-2605.25+
petitioner, so far as Writ Petition No.2605 of 2024 is concerned.
In all other Petitions also the tenders were opened, may be after
the orders were passed by this Court, on 18 th February 2025. But
prior to that certainly an opportunity was given by
communication dated 14th February 2025, to the petitioner to
submit his remarks on the short comings. In the said
communication by E-mail, it was specifically mentioned that the
plant at Pimpalkautha, Taluka-Mudkhed was not found and it was
also stated that in view of not finding the said plant and the fact
that as valid SCADA certificate was not found, the petitioner will
not be eligible for further tendering. Now, it has been stated that
on 17th February 2025, physical copy was tendered at the office
of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Nanded, to
which the documents regarding Drum Mix Plant, RMC Plant,
Sensor Paver Finisher's SCADA certificate and bill, were annexed
and those documents were also sent through E-mail. Of course,
the E-mail appears to be given at 1.44 p.m. of 17 th February
2025 i.e. beyond the time limit given in letter dated 14 th
February 2025. Yet, the fact remains is that when the list was
given, it contained the documents regarding plant located at
Pimpalkautha and now a different location plant was given
without assigning any reason and thereby also the suppression
wp-2605.25+
of the fact of sealing of the plant by the Forest Department.
Such fact is in existence or the fact for which the petitioner has
been disqualified, is a true fact and therefore, it cannot be stated
that the administrative decision taken by the respondents is with
mala fide intention. The case of the petitioner in respect of
rejection of all the tenders, does not fall within the permissible
parameters of the judicial review and therefore, we do not find
that disqualification of the petitioner is unjustified.
21. There appears to be some background regarding the FIR
lodged by the petitioner against the Superintending Engineer,
under the Prevention of Corruption Act and then petitioner was
required to approach this Court time and again when the tenders
were not opened on the fixed date. But taking into consideration
the reasons those were assigned for its disqualification in these
Petitions, one ground is based on true facts and therefore, these
Petitions are not fit Petitions where we can exercise our powers
under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for
interference in the administrative decision.
22. For the reasons afore-stated, all the Writ Petitions stand
dismissed.
wp-2605.25+
23. Rule stands discharged.
24. After the pronouncement of the operative order, learned
Advocate for the petitioner seeks continuation of the interim
order for a period of four weeks. The interim order was in the
nature of "No work order shall be issued till the next date."
25. The matters are in respect of tenders relating to different
works in respect of construction of road. The tender was floated
on 12th August 2023 and since the bid was not opened, the
petitioner had approached this Court and, thereupon, on 26 th
March 2024, statement was made and the bid was opened.
Thereafter the rejection of the bid is on 18 th February 2025.
Since the public works are getting hampered, we refuse the
prayer for continuation of the ad-interim protection.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
asb/OCT25
