Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Siddhivinayak Construction Company, challenged its disqualification from a composite tender issued by the State of Maharashtra for construction of K.T. Weirs. The petitioner was disqualified on two grounds: failure to submit the certificate of registration under the Maharashtra State Professional Tax Rules 1975, and failure to submit the EPF allotment letter with updated clearance. The petitioner argued that these were ancillary conditions and that the authorities should have sought clarification. The petitioner also challenged the qualification of respondent no.5, alleging it lacked PWD registration. The court found that the petitioner did not upload the required documents, and the conditions were mandatory. Regarding respondent no.5, the court noted that it possessed the PWD registration certificate at the relevant time. The court held that in tender matters, judicial review is limited to arbitrariness or mala fides, which were absent. The petitions were dismissed, and the interim order was vacated.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Mandatory Conditions - Disqualification - Petitioner disqualified for not uploading PTE/PTR Registration Certificate and EPF documents - Court held that conditions were mandatory and petitioner failed to comply, thus disqualification was valid (Paras 6-7).
B) Tender Law - Qualification of Bidder - Respondent no.5 possessed PWD registration certificate at relevant time - Court found no error in declaring respondent no.5 technically qualified (Para 8).
C) Tender Law - Judicial Review - Scope - Court held that in tender matters, interference is limited to arbitrariness or mala fides, which were not present (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disqualification of the petitioner for non-submission of PTE/PTR registration and EPF documents was valid, and whether respondent no.5's qualification despite lacking PWD registration was proper.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are dismissed. The interim order dated 19.9.2019 stands vacated. Rule discharged. No costs.
Law Points
- Tender conditions are mandatory
- non-compliance leads to disqualification
- courts have limited scope in tender matters
- ancillary conditions can be mandatory if specified
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (09) 20
Writ Petition No.11481 of 2019 with Writ Petition No.11482 of 2019, Writ Petition No.11483 of 2019, Writ Petition No.11484 of 2019
S.V. Gangapurwala, Anil S. Kilor
Mr A.K.Gawali for petitioner, Mr P.G. Borade (A.G.P.) for respondent, Mr V.D. Sapkal for respondent no.5 in WP/11481/2019
M/s Siddhivinayak Construction Company, through its Proprietor Arun Sadhu Gondal
The State of Maharashtra and ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging disqualification in a public tender process and qualification of another bidder.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside its disqualification and the qualification of respondent no.5, and to be considered for the tender.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was disqualified for not uploading PTE/PTR registration certificate and EPF documents, and respondent no.5 was qualified despite alleged lack of PWD registration.
Previous Decisions
An interim order dated 19.9.2019 directed that if work order is not issued, it shall not be issued till next date. Work order was issued to respondent no.5 on 9.9.2019.
Issues
Whether the disqualification of the petitioner for non-submission of PTE/PTR registration and EPF documents was valid.
Whether respondent no.5's qualification despite lacking PWD registration was proper.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that PTE/PTR and EPF conditions were ancillary and not mandatory, and that clarification could have been sought.
Petitioner argued that respondent no.5 did not possess PWD registration certificate at the relevant time.
Respondents argued that conditions were mandatory and petitioner failed to comply, and respondent no.5 possessed the required registration.
Ratio Decidendi
In tender matters, conditions are mandatory and non-compliance leads to disqualification. Courts have limited scope of judicial review, only interfering if there is arbitrariness or mala fides. The petitioner failed to upload mandatory documents, and respondent no.5 possessed the required registration at the relevant time.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is disqualified on two grounds, (i) not possessing the certificate of Registration under Clause (5), Sub-clause (1) of Maharashtra State Professional Tax Rules 1975 and (ii) not submitting copy of letter of Employees Provident Fund Organisation allotting code number under EPF and Miscellaneous Provision Act 1952 with updated clearance/No due certificate.
The learned Counsel submits that the conditions of submitting PTE and PTR Registration Certificate, EPF are ancillary conditions and not mandatory.
The learned A.G.P. submits that respondent no.5 possesses the registration certificate with Public Works Department, Government of Maharashtra.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed writ petitions in 2019 challenging its disqualification and respondent no.5's qualification. An interim order was passed on 19.9.2019. The matter was heard and disposed of on 21.9.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra State Professional Tax Rules, 1975: Clause (5), Sub-clause (1)
- Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952:
