Bombay High Court
Bombay Garage Transport Company vs The Union Of India Thr Its Secretary And ... on 1 September, 2021
Author: R.N. Laddha
Bench: S. V. Gangapurwala, R.N. Laddha
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 06/09/2021
.. 1 ..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8683 OF 2021
Bombay Garage Transport Company
(Through its Partner)
Mohd. Abdul Muqtadir s/o. Mohd. Abdul Naser,
Age : 37 years, Occu : Partner of Bombay
Garage Transport Company,
R/o. 5-9-94/p Muskan, Behind R.T.O. Office,
Railway Station Road, Aurangabad .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India
Through its Secretary
(Food and Civil Supply Department)
2. The Food Corporation of India,
Maharashtra Region,
Regional Office, 5th and 6th Floor,
Rajendra Nagar, Datta Pada Road,
Borivali (East), Mumbai
3. Shree Matoshri Vahatuk Company,
Through Proprietor Sanjay Gulabrao Pawar
Age : 50 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. C.T.S. No.16035/A/66, Pawar Estate,
Shahanoorwadi, Aurangabad
4. Kawale Roadlines,
Through Its Proprietor,
Kawale Apparao Khanduji,
Age : 65 years, Occu : Business,
At Samrat Chowk, Latur
5. Nagnath Gangadharrao Paldewar,
Age : 65 years, Occu : Business,
At Plot No.111/112, Vasant Nagar,
Air Port Road, Nanded
6. S.K. Translines,
Gajanan
::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2021 10:39:52 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 06/09/2021
.. 2 ..
Through Proprietor Hemant Kothari,
Age : 57 years, Occu : Business,
At 1st Floor, 17-19, Suresh Dada Jain Complex,
Ajant Road, Jalgaon
7. Sunil Ramnarayan Mantri
Age : 55 years, Occu : Business,
At. 173, Navi Peth, Saraswati Bhavan,
Jalgaon .. Respondents
...
Mr Shaikh Tarek Mobin H., Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr A.B. Dhongade, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr Milind Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA
AND
R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 01-09-2021 PER COURT : -
1. The petitioner had filed e-tender pursuant to the tender notice issued by the respondent inviting tenders for appointment of handling and transportation of food grains. The petitioner filled in the tender. The technical bid of the petitioner was accepted on or about 19-07-2021. The e-mail to that effect was sent to the petitioner by the respondent.
2. The technical bid of the petitioner was accepted on 19-07-2021. The same technical bid is abruptly rejected on 04-08-2021. The technical bid of the petitioner is rejected under the Gajanan ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2021 10:39:52 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 06/09/2021 .. 3 ..
impugned order on the ground "technically disqualified as experience / undertaking / affidavit is modified".
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner amongst other submissions, submits that after the technical bid of the petitioner was accepted, respondent no.2 without show cause notice to the petitioner and affording opportunity to the petitioner rejected the technical bid. The same is violative of principles of natural justice.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had given true and correct affidavit and the petitioner had not modified the undertaking. The petitioner had given a declaration that the petitioner is registered with the Mathadi & Unprotected Labour Board at Aurangabad. The petitioner pays the Mathadi Board wages and levies and as per law of Mathadi and Unprotected Labour Board, the Board pays the EPF of the labours. The affidavit prescribed in the tender document related to the tenderer fulfilling all the obligations as an employer under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short, 'EPF Act, 1952') towards the staff / labours employed by it in accordance with the EPE Act, 1952 and its provisions.
Gajanan ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2021 10:39:52 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 06/09/2021 .. 4 ..
5. It is submitted that the compliance under the EPF Act is done by the Mathadi Board and as such, the petitioner is not required to make that compliance.
6. The petitioner has relied upon the affidavit given by the other tenderers and accepted by Respondent no.2.
7. Mr Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 submits that the undertaking is required to be given in the form annexed to the tender documents. The other tenderers though have given an undertaking that they are registered with Mathadi and unprotected Labour Board, they have also given the undertaking as required under the tender document with regard to the EPF Act, 1952. They have further on affidavit affirmed that no dues exist against them. The petitioner had not given such an undertaking.
8. The other tenderers whose tenders are accepted some of them had also given an undertaking that they are not registered under the EPF Act and the undertaking as required under the EPF Act was also submitted. Respondent No.2 has to consider how both those Gajanan ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2021 10:39:52 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 06/09/2021 .. 5 ..
affidavits would go hand in hand. Naturally, in the case of the petitioner also the same ought to be considered by respondent no.2.
9. In the present matter, as the technical bid of the petitioner was accepted and it was subsequently rejected without notice to the petitioner, we set aside the order dated 04-08-2021 rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner.
10. The petitioner may file reply considering the ground on which the technical bid has been rejected under order dated 04-08-2021 within seven days from today.
11. Respondent No.2 shall consider the reply filed by the petitioner and take decision on it on its own merits.
12. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. All contentions are kept open.
[ R.N. LADDHA ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ]
JUDGE JUDGE
...
Gajanan
::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2021 10:39:52 :::