Case Note & Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, challenging the tender process conducted by Nashik Municipal Smart City Development Corporation Limited for implementation and maintenance of Integrated Surveillance and City Operations Platforms (ISCOP) for the Emergency Operation Center in Nashik. The tender was issued on 5 July 2022 with a completion timeline of twelve months from the work order. The pre-qualification criteria required bidders to have an average annual turnover of minimum Rs.35 crores in the preceding five financial years, to be proved through audited statements or a certificate from a Chartered Accountant. Several bidders participated. The petitioner sought termination of the work order dated 29 December 2022 issued to Respondent No.3, cancellation of the entire tender process, appointment of an appropriate enquiry committee to investigate the tender process, and recovery of amounts paid to Respondent No.3. The court heard the matter on 13 June 2025, but the judgment text provided is truncated, preventing extraction of the court's analysis, reasoning, or final decision on the prayers.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petitioner filed writ petition seeking termination of work order dated 29 December 2022 issued in favour of Respondent No.3, cancellation of the tender process for Integrated Surveillance and City Operations Platforms, appointment of an enquiry committee, and recovery of money - Petitioner contended non-compliance with pre-qualification criteria, particularly the requirement of average annual turnover of Rs.35 crores in the previous five financial years, supported by audited statements or a Chartered Accountant's certificate - No final judgment is included in the extracted text (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the work order dated 29 December 2022 and the tender process for Integrated Surveillance and City Operations Platforms should be terminated; whether an enquiry committee should be appointed; and whether money paid to the successful bidder should be recovered.
Law Points
- Judicial review of tender process under Article 226
- pre-qualification criteria compliance
- challenge to work order and tender cancellation
