1 Writ Petition No. 11691/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.11691 Of 2010 Ajinkya Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Chalisgaon & Ors. .. Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. Dhananjay B. Thoke, Advocate for petitioners. Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 to 7. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 7th JANUARY 2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioners raise challenge to some of the clauses of the tender document and pre-qualification bid. Learned counsel submitted that, average turn over, under the present tender, of a bidder is expected to be of minimum Rs. two crores. Some conditions are harsh and unreasonable. The petitioners were providing Setu Services on successive extensions given by the State authorities in Jalgaon District. The petitioners have 2 Writ Petition No. 11691/2010 experience of past three years. If the conditions were not stringent the petitioners could have very well participated in the tender process. The counsel submitted that, the petitioners have purchased the tender form but it is yet to be submitted. 3) On instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that, the tender is issued covering entire district of Jalgaon and around 76 types of services are to be provided through Setu Centers. Therefore, considering the magnitude of the services to be provided and the area of operation, for inviting best and competent applicants, the conditions are framed to suite the object. During the course of hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that, there were complaints in respect of functioning of the petitioners and the State authorities were not satisfied with the services which were rendered by the petitioners. 4) We have perused the conditions of the tender document. Clause (x) reads thus: 3 Writ Petition No. 11691/2010 "(x) The terms and condition mentioned in the tender document are liable to change after discussion in Pre-bid meeting." 5) The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that, pre-bid meeting was held and none of the 10 to 12 bidders raised objections to the conditions. 6) We have perused other conditions regarding which objection is taken by the petitioners. Considering the magnitude of the services and the area of operation, the terms and conditions were framed by the authorities concerned. Around 12 to 13 applicants have already submitted their tenders. Pre-bid meeting was also held, according to the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 7) Considering all relevant aspects of the matter we do not find that, the petition is required to be entertained in exercise of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8) The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl