1 W.P.No.440/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 440 OF 2010 Vijay Hiralal Jaiswal ).. Petitioner Versus The Chief Engineer, Special Project (P.W.) ) Mumbai and others ).. Respondents Mr. Udaya S. Samudrala for the Petitioner. Mr. Niranjan Pandit, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State. Mr. Vishwajeet Sawant for the Respondents. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 12TH JULY 2010 P.C. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the decision of the respondent-authority considering that the petitioner is not eligible for opening of the price bid for the contract of “Strengthening of anti sea erosion bund at Alibag, District Raigad (Rest House to D.S.P. Bungalow). The tender documents required the bidder to comply with several conditions in order to be eligible. Some of the conditions were as under :- “3.4.8 Details of work done in all classes of civil Engineering works during last three years with the value of unfinished work (Information to be given in Form No.1, Page No.23 and should be supported by work done certificate signed by the Authority with whom the contractor has executed the work). 2 W.P.No.440/10 3.4.9 Details of similar type of work i.e. work involving providing and laying trap stone rubble carried out in tidal conditions in Sea coastal area. (Information to be given in proforma of Form No.2, Page No.24 and should be supported by work done certificate signed by the Authority with whom the contractor has executed the work.) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 3.4.16.1 To qualify for award of the contract each tenderer in his name should have (a) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (b) Satisfactorily completed (from start to finish), as a prime contractor, at least one similar type work i.e. work of anti sea erosion bund constructed by using Gabion boxes and involving use of trap stone rubble of value not less than Rs.500.00 Lakh (Form 2 on Page No. 24).” 2. Since the petitioner was not found to have complied with the above conditions, the respondents did not call the petitioner for opening the price bids and the petitioner made a complaint/representation against the above decision, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner did not comply with the above requirements. In response to the said communication, the petitioner by letter dated 5th January 2010 stated that there was nothing contained in the tender inviting specialized skill, machineries or technique and that the pre qualification norms as inserted are not relevant as such unauthorized and inserted to favour a particular contractor. 3. The same stand is taken up by the petitioner in the memo of the petition. 3 W.P.No.440/10 4. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the work in question is highly specialized work costing more than 10.74 crores. In paragraph 8 of the reply affidavit, several technical details are given by the respondent authority indicating how the work in question requires specialized skills. 5. In view of the settled legal position, this Court is not sitting in appeal over any decision of the authority in determining the technical eligibility criteria. We do not find any merit in the petition. Petition is summarily dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.