Bombay High Court
Devyani Bahuuddeshiya Mahila Sanstha ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 9 January, 2019
Author: Prasanna B. Varale
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
(1) wp236.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.236 OF 2019
DEVYANI BAHUUDDESHIYA MAHILA SANSTHA THROUGH PRESIDENT
SUNDARBAI SAKHARAM PATIL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Mr. S.S.Bora, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. K.N.Lokhande, AGP for the respondent/State
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED : 09.01.2019 P.C. :- 1. Heard Mr. S.S.Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the respondent authorities and more particularly the respondent No.2 the Superintendent of Prisons, District Prisons, Jalgaon floated a tender notice for supply of the snacks and food to the inmate in the District Prison at Bhusaval. The learned counsel invited our attention to the terms and conditions of the tender notice.
3. The learned counsel submitted further that the petitioner is a registered society and was desirous of participating in the tender process to stake his claim alongwith the other tenderers. The learned counsel then submitted that as per the schedule the process of applications was to initiate on 13.12.2018. The technical bids were to be opened on 20.12.2018 and the ::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2019 03:18:21 ::: (2) wp236.19 commercial financial bids were to be opened on the very day i.e. on 20.12.2018 at 5.00 p.m. Learned counsel then submitted the requisite criteria for the prospective tenderer is referred to in Annexure-A and the petitioner submitted all the documents so as to submit before the authority that the petitioner is having the requisite qualification. The learned counsel then submitted that the authorities have not undertaken the exercise of opening the financial bids. Even the reasons are not assigned for rejecting the claim of the petitioner as the prospective tenderer. The learned counsel submitted that it is the impression of the petitioner that probably the authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner as the petitioner failed to submit a document, namely, the technical document No.5 i.e. a certificate issued by the Sales Tax Department at the close of financial year 2017.
4. It was further submission of Mr. Bora, the learned counsel that as there is a reforming tax policy the petitioner obtained a certificate issued by the office of Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise Range-I on 15.10.2018 and submitted the same before the authority. He fairly submitted that this is only the assumption of the petitioner because the petitioner submitted all other documents to the authorities. The sum and substance of the submission of the Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the process initiated by the respondent authorities lacks transparency and the petitioner is entitled to know the reasons for rejection of his claim. Though the ::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2019 03:18:21 ::: (3) wp236.19 learned counsel Mr. Bora raised this issue, we are unable to accept this submission at this stage for two reasons. Firstly, the response of the respondent authorities is awaited and it can be obtained on issuance of notice to the respondents. Secondly, the petitioner with an open eye participated in the tender process. The petitioner himself placed on record the terms and conditions of the tender process. Clause 11 and 12 deals with the rights of the authorities and powers vest with the authorities in the mater of the tenders. It would be useful to refer to clause 12 to record our reservations on the submissions of the learned counsel. Clause 12 states that if the authority finds that there are certain deficiencies in the technical bids, the authorities may not undertake the further exercise of opening commercial or financial bids. Thus, if the petitioner had the grievance on transparency of the tender process, the petitioner could have approached this Court raising this objection to the tender notice before participating in the tender process.
5. With these observations, we are issuing notice to the respondents, returnable on 20.02.2019.
6. Learned AGP waives service of notice for both the respondents.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.] ssp/Jan.19/wp236.19 ::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2019 03:18:21 :::