712wp5153.09.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5153 of 2009 (Vinod s/o. Laxman Temburne and anr. vs. State and anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D.D.Sinha and F. M. Reis, JJ. Date : 07/12/2009. Heard Mr. Abhay Sambre, Adv. for petitioners and Mr.P.D.Kothari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. In the instant petition, the grievance of petitioners is in respect of the procedure adopted by respondent while undertaking the tender process in respect of supply of labour. Counsel for petitioners has submitted that the tender notice was published by respondent on 1.11.2009 whereby tenders were invited for supply of labour. Petitioners have submitted their tender before the last date of submission of tenders. Technical and financial bids were opened on 18.11.2009. However, the respondent, instead of finalising the contract, for no reason, published fresh tender notice for the same work on 22.11.2009 without cancelling the earlier tender process and hence, present petition. 712wp5153.09.odt 2 . Counsel for respondent no.1/State has submitted that, so far as the earlier tender process is concerned, respondents have received seven tenders pursuant to the advertisement dt. 1.11.2009 and after opening their bids, only one tenderer out of seven was found eligible and six were disqualified in view of conditions of tender and therefore, respondent decided to issue fresh tender notice in order to have better competition and therefore, published fresh tender notice dt. 22.11.2009. It is further contended that, in any case, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were not eligible and were disqualified in view of conditions of tender. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel. It is nodoubt true that, when the tenderers were found not eligible after opening their technical bids, in that case, their financial bids ought not to have been opened by the department and their tenders should have been rejected at that juncture. However, in the instant case, it appears that the financial bids of tenders were opened by the department irrespective of the fact that, out of seven, six were not eligible. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that, the record, in no uncertain terms, shows that, out of seven tenderers, six, in fact, were not qualified in view of the terms and conditions of the tender including petitioner nos. 1 and 2. It is well settled that, so far as the 712wp5153.09.odt 3 . public contracts are concerned, the department must ensure better competition and proper publicity before allotting the work under tender and therefore, the procedure adopted by respondent, in our view, appears to be consistent with this policy. Consequently, the petition suffers from lack of merits. Hence, the same is dismissed. However, we want to express that, from henceforth, the respondent must ensure that the procedure they undertake must be consistent with the conditions of tender documents. JUDGE JUDGE jais