1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 3955/2008 (Shri Vijay s/o Omprakash Bansal vs. M/s Mah. Small Scale Industries Dev. Corpn. And another) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... CORAM: D.D.SINHA & A. P. BHANGALE , JJ. DATED: 15th January, 2009. *** Heard Mr. Nitin Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr R K Deshpande, for Respondent No. 1 and Mr S M Puranik, for Respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the General Manager, Maharashtra Small Scale Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited (in short “MSSIDC)” has published a tender notice dated 22nd May, 2008 whereby, sealed offers were invited from the experienced firms/ agencies for appointment as Coal Handling Agents for a period of two years. It is submitted that the last date of submission of tender was 30.5.2008. The petitioner along with other five tenderers submitted their tender within the stipulated period. The technical bid was opened on 30.5.2008. The MSSIDC found all six tenderers were qualified and, therefore, the price bids were 2 opened on 4.6.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner'stender was lowest in respect of WCL, the same was ignored by the Respondent-Corporation without any justification and accepted the tender of Respondent No.2 in whose favour the Work Order came to be issued. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the procedure prescribed in Clause (B) of the Tender Documents which deals with commercial bid Part II, it is specifically stated that :- “For two coal companies i.e. WCL and SECL, separate rate shall be quoted in Annexure II enclosed.” It is submitted that as per clause of the Tender Document which deals with awarding of contract, the Respondent-Corporation was required to grant contract of coal handling to the eligible agency like the petitioner whose tender was the lowest for the work under tender in respect of WCL and, therefore, the Corporation ought to have accepted the tender of the petitioner for appointment as Coal Handling Agent for WCL. However the offer of the petitioner though being lowest, was not considered by the Respondent-Corporation and, therefore, the petitioner has challenged the action of the Respondent of accepting the tender of Respondent No. 2. 3 4. Mr. R K Deshpande, learned counsel for the Corporation states that the tender was floated for the purpose of appointing Coal Handling Agent for WCL as well as SECL companies. It is further contended that though the tenderers were required to submit separate bid as per Annexure II for these two companies, as per clause which deals with awarding of contract, the Respondent -Corporation had reserved the right to award the contract to the eligible agency who has submitted lowest offer - one for WCL colleries and another for SDECL colleries or only one offer for both i.e. WCL and SECL. Shri Deshpande, further, contended that in the instant case, the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 2 gave separate offers and separate price bids in the prescribed proforma for the above- referred two different companies. However, while considering the composite offer and in view of the above-referred clause, the Respondent-Corporation was legally entitled to accept the lowest composite offer and, therefore, the offer of Respondent No.2 was accepted on 17.6.2008 and Work Order was also issued in favour of Respondent No. 2 for handling coal for both these companies, on 15.9.2008. The agreement is also executed between the Respondent -Corporation and Respondent No.2 on 16.9.2008. It is, therefore, contended that the procedure adopted by the Respondent was consistent with the conditions of tender and is sustainable in law. 4 5. Mr. S.M. Puranik, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has supported the action of Respondent-Corporation of awarding of contract to him. 6. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective parties. In the instant case, as per the Tender Document, the tenderers were required to submit separate price bids for handling coal in respect of two different companies i.e. WCL and SECL. However in view of the another condition of tender, the Respondent- Corporation was entitled to consider these offers separately as well as together. In the instant case, the Respondent-Corporation considered the price bids given by the petitioner for handling coal in respect of both the companies together as well as offer given by Respondent No.2 in this regard. It is not in dispute that the composite offer given by Respondent No.2 in respect of both the Companies for handling coal was lowest and since the Respondent-Corporation, in view of the condition of tender, was eligible to appoint one coal handling agent for both the companies, if the offer is lowest, the action of Respondent -Corporation of accepting tender and awarding of contract to Respondent No. 2, appears to be consistent with the procedure prescribed in the Tender Document. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare