1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2588 OF 2009 Nanda Chandrabhan Thakur & Anr. ..Petitioners. v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. R.U.Singh for Petitioners. Mr.Mandar Goswami, AGP for State. Mr.V.M.Parshuram i/b. Abhjeet Gosavi for Respondent No.2. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & A.P.DESHPANDE, JJ DATED : DECEMBER 19, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging clause-6, clause-3, clause-9, clause B and clause-C of the Tender document. One of the challenge is to clause-6 of the terms and conditions specified in the Tender document, which reads thus: 2 “6. The eligible Mahila Mandal, Mahila Sanstha, Self helping Saving Group, should attach a Certificate about producing of the Food or equivalent like Forotified Blended Premix and supplying the same upto the Anganwadi in ICDS for the last 3 consecutive financial years having a turn over of 1.00 crores. The said Certificate should be certified by the Chartered Accountant. (Year 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009)” On plain language of this condition, what is specified is that only Mahila Mandal, Mahila Sanstha and self helping Saving Group can participate in the tender process, provided they qualify other requirements in clause-6. One of the requirement specified is that the tenderer should have a turn over of atleast Rs.1.00 crore for three consecutive financial years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. and that position has to be certified by the Chartered Accountant. The Petitioners before us do not fit in either category. In the first place, the Petitioners are neither espousing the cause of Mahila Mandal or Mahila Sanstha or Self helping Saving Group. In that sense, the Petitioners are not eligible as per the tender document at all. Assuming that the Petitioners could have persued their claim, the Petitioners do not have turn over of over Rs.One Crore, as is required as per clause-6. According to the Petitioners, this condition is excessive and would deprive small time traders and business persons from participating in the tender process. 3 3. We are not impressed by this argument at all. The criteria fixed by the Respondent is a policy matter and is keeping in mind all other factors to further the implementation of child development services scheme. It is not open to this Court to change the criteria fixed by the Authorities in that behalf. We do not find it to be arbitrary in any manner. Taking any view of the matter, the Petitioners cannot be said to be eligible for participating in the tender process having regard to the clause-6 of the Terms and Conditions of the Tender document. The challenge raised by the Petitioners in relation to the other clauses, in our opinion, need not detained us, as the Petitioner does not possess basic qualification to participate in the tender process. Hence Petition is devoid of merits. Dismissed 4. Counsel for the Petitioner undertakes to remove office objection, if any, within one week from today. A.P.DESHPANDE,J A.M.KHANWILKAR, J