IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.808 OF 2008 Industrial Plants and Waste Treatment Corpn and Anr. ... Petitioners V/s Municipal Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.K.Samdani i/b Dhruva Liladhar and Co. for the Petitioner M.K.K.Singhvi with Ms S.M.Mode for Respondent no.1 Mr.Kishore P. Jain i/b M/s Niranjan and Co. for Respondent no.4 CORAM:BILAL NAZKI, AND A.P.BHANGALE,JJ DATE: APRIL 25, 2008 P.C.:- 1. This writ petition is filed challenging basically process of allotment of tender. The tenders were invited for design, supply, installation, commissioning, operation and maintenance of stationary compactors at various sites in Mumbai. In response to the tender notice, bids were filed by various companies including the petitioner. The financial bid of the petitioner was not opened on the ground that he was found non responsive. As far as the technical bid was concerned, the qualification criteria was laid down in clause 2 of the tender notice. The essential qualification was that the tenderer should be the manufacturer of stationary compactor or its authorized agent having experience of operation and maintenance of refuse stationary compactor machinery or any other similar electro-hydro mechanical waste handling machinery equipment for two years. The petitioner never claimed that he had this experience but he claimed that he was associated/agent of concern known as M/s Marathon Equipment Co. USA. It is not disputed by the Respondents that M/s Marthon Equipment Co. USA, had the qualification as prescribed under the tender notice. During the pendency of this petition and while Respondents were in process of finalising the tenders and allotment of the contract to one of the Respondents, the petitioner sought amendment to the petition and the same was also allowed. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Chief Engineer, (Solid Waste Management) i/c in the Employment of Respondent no.2, it has been stated that on their enquiries from M/s Marathon Equipment Co. USA, they were informed that a letter issued in favour of Industrial Plants and Waste Treatment Corporation i.e. the Petitioner, had been withdrawn by their letter dated 10-1-2008. The Petitioner has claimed to be an agent and associates on the basis of the letter written to them by M/s Marathon Equipment Co. USA, and since M/s Marathon Equipment Co. has informed the Chief Engineer that the letter issued in favour of the Petitioner had been withdrawn, the Respondents were right in rejecting the technical bid as non responsive since the principal on whose behalf tender had been filed had claimed that the petitioner was not their agent or associate. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the action taken by the Respondents. 3. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this was not the only ground on which the Petitioner’s technical bid was rejected. We do not accept such contention, which is now for the academic interest only, even if the other reasons for rejection are held to be invalid, even then the petitioner could not claim the contract because of their lack of expertise as per clause 2 of the tender notice. 4. In view of the above writ petition is dismissed. ( BILAL NAZKI,J ) ( A.P.BHANGALE,J )