Case Note & Summary
The writ petition is directed against the decision of the Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation qualifying the bid of respondent No.3 in a tender for door-to-door collection and transportation of municipal solid waste. The petitioner, an unsuccessful bidder, challenged the qualification after the Municipal Commissioner rejected his objections regarding the technical and financial capacity of the successful bidder. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.14388 of 2017, which was disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner to consider those objections. The Commissioner passed an order on 25.01.2018 rejecting the objections. In the present petition, the petitioner sought certiorari to quash the qualification and mandamus to award the contract to him. The petitioner contended that respondent No.3 lacked the required experience in door-to-door collection, as the certificates from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation pertained only to hire of vehicles and not to collection. Reliance was placed on a Gujarat High Court judgment in which similar certificates were held insufficient. It was also argued that the financial capacity was artificially inflated by including receipts from undisclosed projects to meet the turnover threshold. The petitioner further pointed out that two other technical bids were rejected on similar grounds, indicating arbitrary treatment. The petition cited several Supreme Court judgments on tender matters. The High Court, having heard senior counsel for the parties, reserved judgment on 8th February 2018 and pronounced it on 14th February 2018. The provided text of the judgment, however, does not include the court’s reasoning or the final operative order, and therefore the decision and its ratio are not recorded.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the decision of the Municipal Corporation in qualifying the bid of the third respondent and rejecting the petitioner's objections is arbitrary, illegal, or violative of the tender terms and principles of natural justice.
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (02) 10
Writ Petition No.1182 of 2018
S.S. Shinde, S.M. Gavhane
P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel i/b. D.P. Palodkar for Petitioner; S.B. Yawalkar, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent No.1; M.V. Deshpande for Respondent No.2; R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel i/b. V.R. Dhorde for Respondent No.3; P.S. Dighe for Respondent No.4
The State of Maharashtra, Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation, R and B Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., Sha & Rathod Chartered Accounts
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of the Municipal Corporation in qualifying a bidder in a tender for door-to-door collection and transportation of municipal solid waste and rejecting the petitioner's objections.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the decision qualifying respondent No.3 and the order rejecting objections, and a writ of mandamus to direct the Municipal Corporation to award the contract to the petitioner.
Filing Reason
The Municipal Commissioner rejected the petitioner's objections regarding the technical and financial capacity of respondent No.3 on 25.01.2018, and the petitioner alleges that respondent No.3 lacked the required experience and manipulated its financial credentials.
Previous Decisions
Earlier Writ Petition No.14388 of 2017 was disposed of by the High Court with a direction to the Municipal Commissioner to consider the petitioner's objections; the Commissioner passed an order on 25.01.2018 rejecting those objections, leading to the present petition.
Issues
Whether respondent No.3 possessed the requisite technical experience in door-to-door collection of solid waste as per the tender conditions.
Whether respondent No.3 satisfied the financial capacity criteria under the tender.
Whether the Municipal Corporation properly considered the objections and the binding effect of the Gujarat High Court judgment while qualifying respondent No.3.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondent No.3 lacked the required experience as the certificate from BMC pertained only to hire of vehicles and not to door‑to‑door collection; a similar certificate was rejected by the Gujarat High Court.
The certificate was not issued by an officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner as mandated by the tender conditions.
The financial capacity figures were manipulated by adding receipts from undisclosed projects to meet the minimum annual turnover of Rs.12 Crores.
The rates quoted by respondent No.3 in an earlier tender for the same work were erratic, indicating lack of experience.
Two other technical bids were rejected on identical grounds, but the Municipal Corporation failed to reject respondent No.3’s bid, demonstrating arbitrariness.
The decision of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.2610 of 2017 is binding on the Municipal Corporation, yet it was ignored while qualifying respondent No.3.
Procedural History
The petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No.14388 of 2017. The Division Bench disposed of that petition, directing the Municipal Commissioner to consider the petitioner’s objections regarding technical and financial capacity of respondent No.3. The Commissioner passed an order on 25.01.2018 rejecting those objections. The present writ petition was filed thereafter. The High Court issued Rule and heard the matter finally with the consent of parties.
