1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION LOD.NO.1401 OF 2010 M/s.Bhumika Transdport Nandish Construction Co. .. Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate i/b. Mahesh Shah & Co. for petitioner Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Senior Advocate i/b. Vidya Gharapure for BMC. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. Date : 7th July 2010. P.C. 1] In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the decision of respondent Municipal Corporation treating the petitioner as not eligible to participate in the tendering process. 2] The respondent Corporation had issued tender notice for removal of refuse from Gorai and transporting the same to the dumping ground at 2 Deonar for disposal for a period of 18 months by use of compactors, excavators and loaders. 3] The tender document lays down following criteria in the technical bids:- “Post Qualification Criteria:- The prospective bidder shall fulfill the following post qualification criteria to be considered as responsive. Technical Criteria: (A) The tenderer shall have successfully executed the work of average value of minimum Rs.1.74 Crore per year in the field of transportation and handling of solid waste during last three financial years i.e. 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. (b) The tenderer shall have in possession or in command minimum 18 nos. of compactors and 3 nos. of excavator cum loader 3 which confirms to Mumbai R.T.O. Rules and Regulations for plying within Mumbai Municipal Limit.” 4] Respondent Corporation received five tenders out of which four were found responsive, as according to respondents, four parties had fully complied with tender conditions. The petitioner’s bid was considered as non-responsive for not complying with the criteria of technical bid. 5] Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the terms and conditions of the tender requires the respondents to give seven days time to the bidder to submit the requisite documents and to cure the defects, if any. It is further submitted that the terms of operation of the tender also gave the contractor mobilisation period of one month and, therefore, it was open to the petitioner to arrange for requisite number of compactors within one month and it was also open to the petitioner to submit requisite documents within one week to show that the petitioner was able 4 to procure requisite compactors within one month. 6] On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents submitted that looking to the nature of the work, the contractor is required to commence the work within three days from the date of receipt of the work order as indicated in terms of operation. 7] It is also submitted that the period of one week is to given only to supply the documents which are indicated in the tender document. As regards, mobilisation period, it is submitted that one month period is given to arrange for all machinery required for the subject work and it is not that during this period of one month, the Contractor need not have necessary vehicles. The relevant clause specifically provides that if the sufficient numbers of compactor vehicles are not available with bidder during mobilisation period, then, for short fall, use of dumper vehicles shall be allowed for removal and transportation of refuse for final disposal upto disposal site. 5 8] Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that there is considerable substance in the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that looking to the nature of the work, the contractor is required to start the work within three days from the receipt of the work order and, therefore, the mobilisation period of one month referred to in clause 10 of Section III. (Terms of Operation) does not contemplate that the contractor can be allowed to wait for a period of one month to procure requisite vehicles. As is pointed out on behalf of respondents, even if, sufficient number of compactor vehicles cannot be mobilised during this period of one month, the contractor is required to use the dumper vehicles for removal of waste. 9] Admittedly, the petitioner did not indicate in his technical bid that the petitioner has the requisite number of compactors in his possession or at his command as on the date of submitting the technical bid. 10] In this view of the matter and having regard to the urgency with which the respondent corporation is intending to proceed for removal of 6 municipal waste/ refuse, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned decision. Petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)