Bombay High Court
National Management Training ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 25 April, 2023
Author: Sandeep V. Marne
Bench: S.V.Gangapurwala, Sandeep V. Marne
2023:BHC-AS:12639-DB
93.5420.23-wp.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5420 OF 2023
National Management Training
Institute ..... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. Amey Deshpande for the Petitioner
Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for the State
CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : APRIL 25, 2023 P.C.
1. The technical bid of the Petitioner is held to be non responsive.
Respondent No.3 is only bidder held to be eligible.
2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had complied with all the terms and conditions. Without assigning proper reasons, the technical bid of the Petitioner is rejected. The learned Counsel submits that various objections were raised about the technical eligibility of Respondent No.3 also.
However, the same is not considered. The grounds which were raised to hold the Petitioner ineligible also apply to Respondent No.3.
The learned Counsel further submits that the case of Respondent No.3 suffers from conflict of interest. The said aspect is also not Basavraj 1/5 ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2023 09:59:32 ::: 93.5420.23-wp.docx considered. Respondent No.3 also engaged in testing of food. In case the work is allotted to Respondent No.3, then Respondent No.3 would also provide the training to cook the food and test the food.
The same would amount to conflict of interest.
3. We had heard the matter on 18 th April 2023 and upon hearing the contentions, we find that admittedly, the Petitioner failed to submit the turnover certificate certified by the Chartered Accountant with the requisite UD number. Other objections were also raised against the Petitioner. We had kept the matter today, as the objections were raised against Respondent No.3.
4. Today, the learned AGP has placed on record the objections raised and the decision taken by them. Same read thus:
Sr. Objection Reply
No.
1 Company has not attached Self Attested No such condition is
Tender Form and Corrigendum which present in qualification clearly shows that the terms mentioned in criteria as per RFP. the tender form are not accepted by the company. Prior also there has been many court instances for the same and is made compulsory do the same.
2 Company is the MDM Caterer then how is No such condition is the company eligible to take part in this present in qualification tender when the same company is the criteria as per RFP. supplier for the same Mid-Day- Meal scheme. Also the same company is in correspondence with the mid day Meal Scheme from very long time for testing of raw and cooked food samples at district levels.
Basavraj 2/5 ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2023 09:59:32 :::93.5420.23-wp.docx 3 Company has done Testing for the same No such condition is scheme in the year 2021-2022 as on Page present in qualification No.87 it is mentioned that MDM Separate criteria as per RFP. Call has deducted TDS of Shree Analytical Testing and research Laboratory.
4 GST Certificate which is attached is not of As it is a proprietorship Shree Analytical testing and laboratory but firm, GST certificate of in the name of Mr.Arjun Mahajan. The the proprietor with trade name in case of proprietorship also same PAN is accepted. mandatorily needs to be the company's name and not Proprietor's individual Name.
5 GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B uploaded is not of all GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B is 3 yrs as asked in the tender form. provided from page no 122 to page no 148.
6 Company registration certificate which is No such condition is attached is of old address (Mentioned new present in qualification address by hand)and seems to be invalid) criteria as per RFP. 7 As per point no.6.4 of tender form and page The Bidder has no 06 of corrigendum, applicant company provided experience of should have experience of fostac training training as per Food on state level but the mentioned company Safety and Standard have experience only for district level. Act 2006 in Annexure I and II hence, it may be accepted.
8 The document which is uploaded for fostac Ranking as per the ranking is very old. The company's current FOSTAC portal is ranking is 71. considered.
(Screenshot of fostac portal attached) 9 In balance sheet, page no.44,78 & 110 Tax audit report with shows the document is for M/s Shree ATR same PAN is attached Labs whereas page No.45, 78 & 110 shows wherein name of that the document is for M/s ATR Labs. proprietor is Turnover certificate attached shows mentioned. Also sign document is for M/s Shree Analytical and stamp of Shree testing and research Laboratory. analytical testing and research lab is provided on these pages.
10 In several documents there is address No such condition is mismatch like on Udyam certificate there present in qualification is different address and on GST Certificate criteria as per RPF. there is different address, for which no proper letter is attached.
Basavraj 3/5 ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2023 09:59:32 :::93.5420.23-wp.docx 11 In the PPT company has mentioned that No such condition is they have more than 10+ Trainees on roll present in qualification with them but in Appendix 3 they have criteria as per RFP. mentioned or only 8 trainers out of which 2 are not available on the fostac portal.
12 In the experience part, same work orders Work experience as per are attached by the company and again, Annexure 1 and 2 also the work orders attached on Page No. format as per RFP 269 and 271 seems to be edited. along with relevant supporting document is considered.
2. Mrs Precision Consultancy Services Sr. Objection Reply
1. The work orders company has attached This point is already is of all only of private trainings and considered in report that too the trainee count among all the submitted by us. 3 yrs is too less. The company neither has experience in the Training field nor in the Fostac Trainings.
5. The scope of judicial review in matters of tender is in narrow compass. This Court would only step-in if the decision making process is not adhered to and/or decision taken is arbitrary and unreasonable.
6. It would appear that the objections raised by the Petitioner qua tender of Respondent No.3 are attended to and decided by the Respondents. The Respondent / employer is the best judge to verify whether the terms and conditions are complied with.
7. As the objections have been dealt with by the Respondents, we cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Respondents.
Basavraj 4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2023 09:59:32 :::93.5420.23-wp.docx
8. One more submission is made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that only Respondent No.3 is held to be eligible or other tenderers are held to be ineligible and if only one person is eligible then in that case the Respondents will have to reissue tender notice.
9. The Respondent State authority has to follow the executive instructions in the shape of Government Resolutions issued from time to time. The Respondent State Authority has also to consider the feasibility and the rates quoted by the eligible tenderers and take decision whether to proceed with the tender process or to issue fresh tender. Such decision certainly would be taken by the Respondent Authority on its own merits.
10. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) Basavraj 5/5 ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2023 09:59:32 :::