Gujarat High Court
Pareshkumar Rameshbhai Patel vs Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority on 17 April, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5020/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5020 of 2025
==========================================================
PARESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PATEL
Versus
AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR G H VIRK(7392) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 17/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"A. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to admit allow the
present petition.
B. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus and/or any other writ/order or direction in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing and setting aside the tender process pertaining to the
Construction of RCC structure along IOCL Pipeline corridor at SMPL
VK Ch. 33.600 on 60mt bypass road in t.p.s. No. VIII in Sanand
area issued by Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA),
Ahmedabad dated 21.02.2025 issued by the respondent
(ANNEXURE A);
C. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to declare the action of
the respondent, whereby, the petitioner has been disqualified from
the tender process, as illegal, arbitrary, irrational and
unconstitutional and clearly in violation of principles of natural
justice and fairplay and therefore, may be pleased to quash such a
decision.
D. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to direct the respondent
to consider the petitioner for the tender process being tender
pertaining to the Construction of RCC structure along IOCL Pipeline
corridor at SMPL VK Ch. 33.60 on 60mt bypass road in t.p.s. No.8 in
Sanand area dated 21.02.2025.
E. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to direct the respondent
to consider the bid of the petitioner and issue necessary work order
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5020/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
with regard to Construction of RCC structure along IOCL Pipeline
corridor at SMPL VK Ch. 33.60 on 60mt bypass road in t.p.s. No.
VIII in Sanand area issued by Ahmedabad Urban Development
Authority (AUDA), Ahmedabad dated 21.02.2025 issued by the
respondent (ANNEXURE A);
F. Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of the
petition, YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to stay further,
operation, implementation and execution of the tender process for
the Construction of RCC structure along IOCL Pipeline corridor at
SMPL VK Ch.33.600 on 60mt bypass road in t.p.s. No.8 in Sanand
area dated 21.02.2025 issued by the respondent (ANNEXURE A);"
2. In nut-shell, the petitioner is challenging the award of
contract to the respondent No.2 - Shree Manglam Buildcon (I) Pvt.
Ltd.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Gadhavi appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that after the tender was floated, the petitioner
participated in the same and offered his bid price which was 8.71%
lower than the estimated amount i.e. total amount of
Rs.38,26,32,764.12. It is submitted that on 01.04.2025, after the
respondent No.1 considered the bids of the respective bidders, it
was declared that the respondent No.2 was qualified. While pointing
out the percentage rate at Page-219, it is submitted that the
respondent No.2, who is ranked as L1, his percentage difference is
7.77 and the resultant amount was Rs.38,65,72,678.66. Thus, it is
submitted that in fact, illegality has been committed by the
respondent No.1 in awarding the contract to the respondent No.2.
4. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr.G.H.Virk appearing for
respondent no.1, at the outset, has submitted that the present writ
petition has been filed by one Pareshkumar Rameshbhai Patel, who
is an authorised person and Director of Shree Guru Infracon Pvt.
Ltd., which is in fact a Joint Venture. It is submitted that on
15.04.2025, the respondent No.1 has already issued a Letter of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5020/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
Award (LOA) to the respondent No.2. It is submitted that in fact,
the petitioner has tried to project himself as a prime contractor,
which is false. It is submitted that the petitioner is not a prime
contractor, as required under condition No.4.5.3 of the tender. It is
mentioned that Shree Guru Infracon Pvt. Ltd. is having an
experience of Joint Venture to the extent of 49% and it is not the
prime contractor. Further, a reference is also made to the document
at Page-218, which has been submitted by the petitioner relating to
the construction of road of over bridge of the Western Railway, in
which, the name of Shree Guru Infracon Pvt. Ltd. figures in Joint
Venture with M/s. Apex Tarmac Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, for rest of the
experience, he has referred to the completion certificate of the said
contract and the Company's name - Shree Guru Infracon Pvt. Ltd.
figured with M/s.Radhey Associates, which is a partnership firm. It
is submitted that thus, the document, which has been produced by
the petitioner establishing his experience as a prime contractor,
runs contrary to the aforementioned document, which is of joint
venture. Learned advocate Mr.Virk also pointed out the relevant
Clauses 4.5.3 and 4.6, wherein the Joint Venture has been scored-
off. He has also pointed out Clause 26.2 relating to the responsive
financial bid and has submitted that in view of the aforesaid
discrepancy, the respondent No.1 has legally given the Letter of
Award to the respondent No.2 on 15.04.2025. In support of his
submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier & Anr. vs. North-
East Frontier Railway & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 760.
5. In response to the aforesaid submission, learned advocate
Mr.Gadhavi has further pointed out that in fact, it was not open for
the respondent No.1 to score-off the Clauses relating to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5020/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
experience of Joint Venture or as a nominated sub-contractor, as
mentioned in the general experience. It is submitted that in fact,
the petitioner is a prime contractor and hence, the bid was not
required to be discarded.
6. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties at length. The fact, as mentioned hereinabove
with regard to participation of the bid and issuing the Letter of
Award to the respondent No.2 on 15.04.2025, is not in dispute. It is
true that the bid of the petitioner was having the differential
amount of Rs.39.39 lacs and his bid was 8.71% lower than the
estimated amount, whereas the bid of the respondent No.2 - Shree
Manglam Buildcon (I) Pvt. Ltd. was below 7.77% of the estimated
amount. However, we may refer to Clause 4.5.3, which mandates
having the general experience of the respective bidders. A bare
perusal of the said Clause 4.5.3 mentions that "works may have
been executed by the applicant as prime contractor". The rest of the
requirement is scored-off, which mentions about the member of a
Joint Venture or as nominated sub-contractor. Clause 4.6, if read in
juxtaposition with Clause 4.5.3, will clarify that in fact, the
respondent No.1 did not intend to offer the contract to Joint Venture
as Clause 4.6 of the tender, which mentions about Joint Venture,
was scored-out. The petitioner was well aware about this before
participating in the tender process. Hence, at this stage, after
participation of the tender process, it is not open for the petitioner
to raise any objection to scoring-off or barring the Joint Venture in
participation of the tender process. The petitioner, in order to
satisfy the general experience as required under Clause 4.5.6 of the
tender, at Page-125, filled-in the percentage of participation of
Company in the project. Item No.1 of such project refers to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5020/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
construction of road over bridge at the Railway Station of Mumbai
and the participation percentage of such project is referred as 49%.
Similarly, item No.2, which refers the construction of major bridge
at Phulera - Degana of Jodhpur Division, similar participation
percentage is referred i.e. 49%. In order to satisfy the aforesaid
experience, the petitioner has filed a document at Page-218 dated
11.03.2025 and item No.3 relates to the name of the contractor,
which is M/s. Apex Tarmac Pvt. Ltd. JV Shree Guru Infracon Pvt.
Ltd., Mehsana (Share: 51% - Apex Tarmac Pvt. Ltd & 49% - Shree
Guru Infracon Pvt. Ltd.).
7. Thus, it is evident from the documents that in the Joint
Venture with M/s.Apex Tarmac Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner - Shree Guru
Infracon Pvt. Ltd. in a share of 49%, has entered the contract for
the construction of road of over bridge at Western Railways. This
can be confirmed from the completion certificate, which has been
tendered by learned advocate Mr.Virk. Thus, a combined reading of
the details, as filled-in by the petitioner at Page-125 read with
Page-218 of the communication dated 11.03.2025, and with Clause
26.2 of the tender document, which read as under:-
"26.2 A substantially responsive "Financial Bid" is one which
confirms all the terms, conditions and specifications of bidding
documents, without material deviation or reservation. A material
deviation or reservation is one (a) which affects in any substantial
way the scope, quality, or performance of the Works; (b) which
limits in any substantial way, inconsistent with the Bidding
documents, the Employer's rights or the Bidder's obligations under
the Contract; or (c) whose rectification would affect unfairly the
competitive position of other Bidders presenting substantially
responsive Bids."
We find that no illegality has been committed by the
respondent no.1 in issuing the Letter of Award dated 15.04.2025 in
favour of the respondent No.2.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5020/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby
rejected.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik/SB1
