(1) WP 6631.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6631 OF 2011 Prashant Constructions through its Proprietor PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.V. Kabade Sawant, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. D.P. Palodkar, Advocate for the respondent nos.2 to 4 Mr. Anand Bhandari, Advocate for the respondent no.5 ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges the award of contract of the work of the land development by respondent nos. 2 to 4 in favour of the respondent no.5. 3. The basic challenge of the petitioner is that though the petitioner had offered bid of ` 2.43 crores, the contract is awarded to respondent no.5 @ ` 2.49 crores. 4. The perusal of the tender conditions, specifically 3(ii) thereof, would reveal thus:- (2) WP 6631.11 3) Tenderer should upload the following digitally signed scan copies of documents/certificates online under Technical Bid. (i) ... (ii) The statement showing the annual turnover for the civil work executed during the year 2010-11 and the amount of work order of civil work those are not executed but work in hand for the year 2010-11. The amount of turn over shall not be less than 60% of the estimated cost of above work." 5. It can thus be clearly seen that the tenderer is required to submit the statement showing the annual turnover executed during the year 2010-2011 and that the amount of the turnover shall not less than 60% of the estimated cost of the above work. Undisputably, the estimated cost of the tender work is ` 2.56 Crores. As such, the 60% of the same would come to ` 1,53,00,000/-. As against this, the balance sheet of the petitioner would show that his turnover for the financial year 2010-2011, is only ` 27 Lakhs. The petitioner has participated in the tender process, knowing very well the tender conditions. 6. In any way, it is settled law that it is for the authority to impose the qualifying conditions. (3) WP 6631.11 Unless such conditions are found to be arbitrary or irrational, it is not for this Court to sit in appeal over them. The condition of having turnover of 60% of the estimated cost of the tender value for previous financial year, cannot be said to be perverse or irrational. 7. Since the petitioner does not qualify in the eligibility criterion, no case is made out for interference. Writ Petition dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/