Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Bidoliwala Construction Co., filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 20/08/2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, rejecting the revision petition under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Parishads and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. The dispute arose from a public advertisement dated 01/11/2014 calling e-tenders for various works by the Municipal Council, Chikhaldara. The tender notice required submission of an original demand draft for earnest money, income tax returns for 2013-14, and sales tax registration certificate. Two bids were received, including one from M/s Pokale Constructions. The petitioner objected that M/s Pokale Constructions had submitted a fixed deposit receipt instead of a demand draft, and income tax returns and sales tax certificate for 2012-13 instead of 2013-14. The Chief Officer noted the non-compliance and referred the matter to the Collector, who opined that fresh tenders should be called. On 17/07/2015, the Municipal Council passed a resolution to call fresh tenders. The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 318, which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner. The petitioner then approached the High Court. The Court considered the submissions of the petitioner's counsel, who argued that the bid of M/s Pokale Constructions was defective and should not have been opened, and that the Additional Commissioner had found the bid defective but still upheld the decision to call fresh tenders. The Court noted that the Chief Officer's action in opening the defective bid was not justified, but the decision to call fresh tenders was a policy decision of the Municipal Council. The Court held that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the decision, as a bidder cannot insist that the tender be awarded to him or that the defective bid be rejected. The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Tender Process - Non-Compliance of Tender Conditions - The petitioner challenged the rejection of his revision petition under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Parishads and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, wherein the Additional Commissioner upheld the Municipal Council's decision to call fresh tenders due to defective bid of M/s Pokale Constructions. The Court held that the Chief Officer's action in opening the defective bid was not justified, but the decision to call fresh tenders was proper and the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge it. (Paras 1-7)
B) Administrative Law - Locus Standi - Challenge to Tender Process - The Court observed that the petitioner, being a bidder, had no right to insist that the tender be awarded to him or that the defective bid be rejected. The decision to call fresh tenders was a policy decision of the Municipal Council, and the petitioner could not compel the authorities to accept his bid. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner erred in rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Parishads and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 against the decision of the Municipal Council to call fresh tenders.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tender conditions
- Earnest money deposit
- Fixed deposit receipt
- Locus standi
- Revision under Section 318
- Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act
- 1965
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (12) 109
Writ Petition No.5110 of 2015
Shri Anand Parchure for petitioner, Shri S. Ahirkar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Shri N. S. Bhelkar for respondent Nos.3 and 4
M/s Bidoliwala Construction Co. through its Proprietor Manikchand Bansilalji Agrawal (Jalan)
1. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, 2. The Collector, Amravati, 3. Municipal Council, Chikhaldara, 4. President, Municipal Council, Chikhaldara, 5. Chairperson, Construction Works Department, Municipal Council, Chikhaldara
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner rejecting revision petition under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Parishads and Industrial Townships Act, 1965.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 20/08/2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner and a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's bid.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the decision of the Municipal Council to call fresh tenders instead of awarding the contract to the petitioner, and by the rejection of his revision petition.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Commissioner rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Parishads and Industrial Townships Act, 1965.
Issues
Whether the Additional Commissioner erred in rejecting the revision petition under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Parishads and Industrial Townships Act, 1965?
Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the decision of the Municipal Council to call fresh tenders?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the bid of M/s Pokale Constructions was defective as it did not comply with tender conditions (fixed deposit receipt instead of demand draft, incorrect income tax returns and sales tax certificate), and the Chief Officer should not have opened it. The Additional Commissioner found the bid defective but still upheld the decision to call fresh tenders, which was erroneous.
The respondents submitted that the decision to call fresh tenders was a policy decision of the Municipal Council and the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge it.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the petitioner, being a bidder, had no locus standi to challenge the decision of the Municipal Council to call fresh tenders. The decision to call fresh tenders was a policy decision, and the petitioner could not insist that the tender be awarded to him or that the defective bid be rejected. The Additional Commissioner's order rejecting the revision petition was upheld.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 20/08/2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Parishads and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 has been rejected.
The Court held that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the decision of the Municipal Council to call fresh tenders.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Parishads and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, challenging the resolution of the Municipal Council to call fresh tenders. The Additional Commissioner rejected the revision petition on 20/08/2015. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Parishads and Industrial Townships Act, 1965: Section 318
