[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Veer Hanumanji Construction Co., Thr. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 1 April, 2026
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
1-WP-2423-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2423 OF 2026
(Veer Hanumanji Construction Co. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. J.T. Gilda, Senior Counsel with Mr. A.J. Gilda, Counsel for
the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Rao, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3/State.
Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari with Mr. S.S. Sarda and Mr. Vallabh
Nare, Counsel for respondent no.5.
.....
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
APRIL 1, 2026
Mr. J.T. Gilda, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner submits that the respondents have been
served. An affidavit shall be filed during the course of the
day. Be filed.
2] The issue involved in the present petition is
identical to the issue involved in Writ Petition Nos.
2413/2026 and 2416/2026, wherein, an interim relief
was granted vide order dated 24/3/2026, which reads
thus :
"On 23.03.2026, following order was
passed:
"Leave to amend the petition is granted.
2] Challenge is to action of rejection of
technical bid of the petitioner by respondent
no.1, and to issuance of work order dated
23/3/2026 to respondent no.4.
3] Respondent no.2 issued an
advertisement calling bids for various works.
The present petition deals with work of
'Improvement to Sh- 84 Mazod Babhulgaon
Km.52/00 to 65/00 Tq. Patur in Akola District
(Under CRF)'. The technical bid was opened on
18/3/2026, evaluation check list was uploaded,
and objections were to be raised on or before
1700 hours of 20/3/2026.
4] The Counsel for the petitioner submits
that technical bid was again opened and
evaluated on 20/3/2026. The petitioner's
technical bid was rejected for the reason that
the partnership deed executed was not proper,
as it amounts to violation of Clause 4.1.12,
which pertains to Integrity Pact, which,
according to him, is to be signed and executed
by the successful tenderer prior to execution of
agreement of work. He submit that in such
circumstances, there is no question of violating
Clause 4.1.12, that too, for the reason of
improper execution of partnership deed.
5] At this stage, the learned A.G.P. submits
that the Clause Number appears to be
incorrectly mentioned and it should have been
Clause 4.1.6, which refers to scanned copy of
original registered partnership deed. He seeks
time to take instructions on this point, and
make categorical statement. Granted.
6] We would like to know the basis on
which the partnership deed is said to be
improper.
7] The Counsel for respondent no.4
submits that work order is issued today
morning and work commenced.
8] The Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the status of online portal as on date,
however, doesn't indicate that work order has
been issued, rather it doesn't even indicate that
financial bid is opened. The online tender status
is tendered across the bar. Taken on record and
marked 'A' for identification.
9] Considering above, we request the
learned A.G.P. to take instructions, and apprise
us of the exact reason for rejecting technical bid
of the petitioner. The respondents shall place on
record original agreement, details of security
deposit and other formalities, which are
required to be completed before issuance of
work order.
10] Stand over tomorrow, i.e., on
24/3/2026."
2. In response to this order, the Executive
Engineer has shown us original agreement,
which is signed by respondent No.4 but not by
the Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department (PWD), Akola. Thus, without
executing agreement, the work order is issued.
The original agreement is returned back to the
Executive Engineer.
3. The learned Government Pleader has
apprised us of the reasons for rejecting
technical bid of the petitioner. The reasons are;
non mentioning of work in the integrity pact,
the partnership firm, which came into existence
in the year 2025, indicates that the firm, which
was earlier functioning as proprietary concern,
through proprietor Vijay Khandelwal, has 51%
share and thus it does not meet criteria of
completion of work as regards mandatory
requirement, Professional Tax Registration
Certificate is not furnished, the partnership
deed has certain discrepancy.
4. Learned Government Pleader seeks time
to place on record details thereof. Granted.
5. He has tendered across the bar minutes
of meeting held on 20.03.2026, wherein these
discrepancies have been noted. The document
is taken on record and marked Article "B" for
identification.
6. Counsel for petitioner has invited our
attention to the said document to point out that
meeting of the Committee headed by the
Superintending Engineer was attended by
Executive Engineer and the Senior Accounts
Officer. Meeting was held at 12:00 noon on
20.03.2026. He has then invited our attention
to Annexure P-4, which is technical bid opening
summary wherein the Department permitted
bidders to raise objections up to 17:00 hrs. of
20.03.2026. Argument is that if objections were
to be submitted till 17:00 hrs. on 20.03.2026,
respondents could not have held meeting at
12:00 noon on 20.03.2026. Learned counsel
further submits that the minutes of meeting
indicates that the objections were raised by
respondent No.4. These objections have been
considered by the committee to disqualify the
petitioner without giving opportunity or
without even notifying the petitioner about
such objections.
7. The petitioner has relied upon
Government Resolution dated 27.09.2018,
wherein under clause 4.5.2, a procedure is laid
down as to how the Technical Evaluation
Committee should process the tender once
technical bid is opened. It provides that in case
of doubt about eligibility, explanation should be
sought from the bidder on the counts
mentioned in said clause which, inter alia,
includes explanation of discrepancy, lacunae,
etc. and if any explanation is required
regarding any documents submitted in the
technical bid. According to the petitioner, had
the aforesaid alleged discrepancies been
pointed out to the petitioner and explanation
sought, it would have furnished the
explanation. This opportunity is, however, not
given.
8. Counsel for petitioner has then pointed
out to us that the meeting was attended by
three officials namely; Superintending
Engineer, PWD, Akola, Executive Engineer,
PWD, Akola and Senior Accounts Officer, PWD,
Akola. The proceedings, however, have been
signed only by the Superintending Engineer
and Executive Engineer. Thus, according to
him, these minutes are incomplete and decision
could not have been taken pursuant to the said
meeting.
9. When inquired with learned
Government Pleader as to why did not Senior
Accounts Officer sign the minutes, he submits,
on instructions, that he was on leave. When
further inquired as to why is his presence noted
in the minutes, he submits that this is a format,
followed by the PWD.
10. We are surprised to hear such
submission. The officer of the rank of
Superintending Engineer, if is following such
practice where he records presence of an officer
in the meeting without his signature and when
countered, he will furnish such lame excuse,
then the very purpose of recording minutes of
meeting will be frustrated. In our view, such
document, will lose its significance for all
purposes. We will deal with this aspect in due
course but let the Superintending Engineer put
forth this plea on affidavit.
11. Thus, on record, the Senior Accounts
Officer had attended the meeting but did not
sign the minutes. Reason, according to the
petitioner's counsel is that he had certified
petitioner's turnover criteria. In support, the
counsel has shown us the Technical Evaluation
Summary annexed at Annexure P5, wherein
under the head of qualification criteria and bid
capacity, which includes the turnover of
petitioner's firm, which is shown to be
Rs.19,90,54,937.08/- and bid capacity of
Rs.16,99,55,080/-, which is above the
requirement. This document is signed by Senior
Divisional Accounts Officer as also the
Superintending Engineer and Executive
Engineer, PWD.
12. We will test this argument in due
course. But what is important, and as pointed
out by the petitioner's counsel, is that the
decision of disqualification is taken by the
committee consisting of three members
whereas Government Resolution dated
27.09.2018 provides that evaluation committee
for the tenders costing more than 1 Crore and
up to 100 Crores should consist of concerned
Superintending Engineer as Chairman,
Executive Engineer/Deputy Engineer and if he
is not available then concerned Assistant
Superintending Engineer as Member, concerned
Executive Engineer as Member, Deputy
Executive Engineer of concerned division as
Member-Secretary and concerned Divisional
Accountant as Member. In addition, it is
provided that the concerned Divisional
Accountant should check all financial details
completely and thoroughly. Thus, his presence
is mandatory.
13. In the present case, the committee
consisting of three (and not five) members has
taken decision to disqualify the petitioner, of
which one member has not signed the minutes.
Thus, it appears, though prima facie, that the
committee, which has taken decision to
disqualify the petitioner is not a valid
committee.
14. That being so, though we grant learned
Government Pleader time to place on record all
the details, we are inclined to grant interim
relief.
15. At this stage, learned Government
Pleader has invited our attention to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in N. G Projects
Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Ors.; [(2022) 6
SCC 127], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has put a word of caution in following terms:
"14. In National High Speed Rail Corpn.
Ltd. v. Montecarlo Ltd. (2022) 6 SCC
401, this Court sounded a word of
caution while entertaining the writ
petition and/or granting stay which
ultimately may delay the execution of
the Mega projects. It was held as under:
"48. Even while entertaining the writ
petition and/or granting the stay which
ultimately may delay the execution of
the Mega projects, it must be
remembered that it may seriously
impede the execution of the projects of
public importance and disables the State
and/or its agencies/instrumentalities
from discharging the constitutional and
legal obligation towards the citizens.
Therefore, the High Courts should be
extremely careful and circumspect in
exercise of its discretion while
entertaining such petitions and/or while
granting stay in such matters. Even in a
case where the High Court is of the
prima facie opinion that the decision is
as such perverse and/or arbitrary
and/or suffers from mala fides and/or
favouritism, while entertaining such
writ petition and/or pass any
appropriate interim order, High Court
may put to the writ petitioner's notice
that in case the petitioner loses and
there is a delay in execution of the
project due to such proceedings
initiated by him/it, he/they may be
saddled with the damages caused for
delay in execution of such projects,
which may be due to such frivolous
litigations initiated by him/it. With
these words of caution and advise, we
rest the matter there and leave it to the
wisdom of the concerned Court(s),
which ultimately may look to the larger
public interest and the national interest
involved."
15 to 20. ...
21. Since the construction of road is an
infrastructure project and keeping in
view the intent of the legislature that
infrastructure projects should not be
stayed, the High Court would have been
well advised to hold its hand to stay the
construction of the infrastructure
project. Such provision should be kept
in view even by the Writ Court while
exercising its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
22 to 25. ...
26. A word of caution ought to be
mentioned herein that any contract of
public service should not be interfered
with lightly and in any case, there
should not be any interim order
derailing the entire process of the
services meant for larger public good.
The grant of interim injunction by the
learned Single Bench of the High Court
has helped no-one except a contractor
who lost a contract bid and has only
caused loss to the State with no
corresponding gain to anyone."
16. As could be seen, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed that the High Courts should
be extremely careful and circumspect in
exercising its discretion while entertaining the
petition involving mega projects, particularly
while granting stay in such matters. The
Supreme Court has further observed that even
in case where the High Court is of prima facie
opinion that the decision is as such perverse
and/or arbitrary and/or suffers from mala fides
and or/favoritism, while entertaining such writ
petition and/or pass any appropriate interim
order, High Court may put to the writ
petitioner's notice that in case the petitioner
loses and there is a delay in execution of the
project due to such proceedings initiated by it,
it may be saddled with the damages caused for
delay in execution of such projects which may
be due to such frivolous litigation initiated by
it.
17. In the present case, the manner in which
the respondents have processed the bids, itself
creates a doubt about the fairness and
transparency in the process, indicating perverse
approach. As noted above, the objections were
to be raised till 17:00 hrs. of 20.03.2026. The
committee, however, held meeting at 12:00
noon on 20.03.2026 and decided to disqualify
the petitioners, that too, without affording any
opportunity to it. Another glaring discrepancy is
constitution of the committee, which has taken
decision to disqualify the petitioner. Apparently
the constitution is contrary to Government
Resolution dated 27.09.2018. That apart, the
Senior Accounts Officer, who is shown to have
attended the meeting has not signed the
minutes of meeting.
18. Accordingly, we grant interim relief. The
work order issued shall stand stayed till
01.04.2026 with a rider that in case the
petitioner loses and there is a delay in
execution of the project due to the present
proceeding initiated by it, it may be saddled
with the damages caused for delay in execution
of the project and if found otherwise, we may
direct the Department to recover the losses
from the erring officials.
19. The respondents shall serve copy of
reply to the petitioners by 30.03.2026.
20. All concerned to act on the uploaded
copy of this order."
3] For the reasons stated above, similar such
relief should follow. Order accordingly.
4] The learned A.G.P. as well as the Counsel for
the respondents seeks time to file reply. Granted. Reply
shall be filed by 9/4/2026. Copy thereof shall be
furnished to the other side.
5] At the request of the learned A.G.P., list on
15/4/2026.
6] Interim relief to continue till next date.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
Sumit
Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/04/2026 16:50:58
