Gujarat High Court
Shree Shakti Enterprise vs Surat Municipal Corporation & 2 on 13 June, 2017
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.N. Karia
C/SCA/2606/2017 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2606 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
======================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
======================================
SHREE SHAKTI ENTERPRISE....Petitioner(s)
Versus
SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 2....Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance:
MR MITUL K. SHELAT, ADVOCATE with MS DISHA N NANAVATY,
ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR DHAVAL G
NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with NEERAJ J VASU,
ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Page 1 of 3
HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Fri Aug 18 08:38:27 IST 2017
C/SCA/2606/2017 JUDGMENT
Date : 13/06/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH)
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned action of respondent no.1 - Surat Municipal Corporation ('SMC' for short) in considering the bid submitted by the Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited as qualified for the tender notice No.PHD/DCHH/19/2016-17 issued by the SMC for door to door refuse garbage collection and transportation for a period of five years.
2. Shri Mitul Shelat, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondents nos.1 & 2 and Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent no.3.
3. At the outset it is required to be noted that the only submission made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the prayer sought in the present petition and in support of the contention that respondent no.3 was not qualified is that respondent no.3 did not upload the requisite annexures, more particularly, Annexure XIV to the tender notice /document within the time prescribed in the tender notice. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that if respondent no.3 is held to be ineligible and consequently its bid is not considered, in that case, the petitioner being L - 2 the work order is required to be given to Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Fri Aug 18 08:38:27 IST 2017 C/SCA/2606/2017 JUDGMENT the petitioner as respondent no.3 is found to be L - 1. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.3, the aforesaid allegations are specifically denied. It has been specifically stated in the affidavit-in-reply that respondent no.3 had uploaded all the relevant documents required under the tender notice, more particularly, Annexure XIV within /before the specific time provided under the tender notice. The aforesaid is not further denied and /or disputed by the petitioner by way of filing counter affidavit and /or affidavit-in-rejoinder.
4. Under the circumstances and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that respondent no.3 was ineligible, and therefore, it cannot be said that the action of respondent no.1 - SMC in treating respondent no.3 as qualified and /or eligible and consequently to consider the bid submitted by respondent no.3 on merits can be said to be either illegal and /or arbitrary and /or contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender notice. As observed hereinabove, as such, no other submissions have been made.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no substance in the present petition and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) (B.N. KARIA, J.) Siji Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Fri Aug 18 08:38:27 IST 2017