1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4934 OF 2009 Pawan Sales Corporation, Through its Proprietor Pawan s/o Pradip Chadawar .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents Shri S.S.Thombre, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.B.Khandare, Government Pleader for respondents CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 29rd July 2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the tender notice published by the respondents in daily newspaper “Sakal” dated 20.7.2009 The nature of challenges raised in this petition to the aforesaid tender notice can be summarised thus : (i) A single tender notice is issued in respect of providing of nutritious food/diet to the school children for the entire State of Maharashtra instead of bifurcating the tender district-wise; 2 (ii) Condition No.12 incorporated in the tender notice i.e. the tenderer should furnish Bank guarantee of a Nationalised Bank of Rs.15 crores is arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights; (iii) Condition No.15 by which the eligibiility of a tenderer is determined on the basis of a certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant showing that turnover of the tenderer of last three years is of Rs.400 crores and out of which Rs.20 crores ought to be in respect of turnover of food grains etc. related to Government. 3. Shri S.S.Thombre, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the scheme of the Government on the basis of which the aforesaid tender notice came to be issued. The Government issued a resolution dated 18.6.2009 by which the earlier practice of cooking nutritious food at the level of the Grampanchayat came to be discontinued and Government directed issuance of tender notice. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner only one tender notice is issued in respect of awarding of contract for providing nutritious food to the students in the entire State of Maharashtra. According to us, the authorities are the best judges and moreover policy which is contained in Government Resolution dated 18.6.2009 is not contrary to the tender notice which has been issued. In other words, the policy as is stated in the Government Resolution dated 18.6.2009 does not mandate that 3 several tenders are required to be issued district wise. On that score, according to us, the aforesaid tender notice cannot be quashed. 4. Turning to the challenge of the petitioner in respect of the two conditions viz., Condition No.12 and Condition No.15, according to us, the aforesaid challenge is not available to the petitioner. Looking to the nature of the financial implications involved in awarding of the contract, the authorities in their wisdom have taken a proper decision and the conditions imposed cannot be said to be arbitrary. Similarly, the argument that no tenderer is qualified in the entire State of Maharashtra who has turnover of Rs.400 Crores out of which Rs.20 Crores is of food grains related to Government etc., is not available to the petitioner. There is nothing to indicate that this condition is tailor-made to suit a particular tender. 5. Even otherwise, the aforesaid challenge to the conditions tender notice is unsustainable in view of the Judgment of Supreme Court in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 651, particularly in view of the observations of the Supreme Court at paragraph 94 of the Judgment wherein the Supreme Court has stated that the terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. 4 6. After giving our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced before us by the learned Counsel for the parties, according to us, there is no merit in the petition and, therefore, the petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) vvr/4934.09wp