Bombay High Court
M/S Tirupati Constructions, Engineers ... vs The Chief Engineer, Maharashtra State ... on 15 April, 2019
Author: Pushpa V. Ganediwala
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
1 150419wp8517.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 8517 OF 2018
M/s TIRUPATI CONSTRUCTIONS, ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, CHANDRAPUR
VERSUS
CHIE ENGINEER, MAH. POWER GENERATOIN CO. AND OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. S. Ghate, ADvocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M. P. Khajanchi, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE and
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 15, 2019.
1. Heard.
2. Although, initially it was stated by the petitioner that the tender submitted by the petitioner was rejected arbitrarily without assigning any reason or holding a pre- bid meeying, the documents placed on record by respondent nos.1 and 2, it disclosed that a notice was published on website regarding pre-bid meeting to be held on 26.10.2018 and pre-bid meeting was indeed held on 26.10.2018 in which, two other bidders i.e. respondent nos.3 and 4, attended the meeting. Now, it is the contention of the petitioner that he did not receive the notice of pre-bid meeting, but respondent nos.1 and 2 contend that the notice was published on the website. It has also been one of the grounds of the petition that the documents were not uploaded by respondent nos.3 and 4, whereas it is the contention of the respondent nos.1 and 2 that they were indeed uploaded by respondent nos.3 & 4.
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2019 02:21:57 :::2 150419wp8517.18.odt
3. The above referred facts of the case disclose that it involves disputed questions of law, which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The alternate remedy available to the petitioner to redress the grievance expressed on these counts would be more efficacious.
4. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected with liberty to the petitioner to resort to such other appropriate remedy as available in law. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Diwale
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2019 02:21:57 :::