IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3960 OF 2009 Sahebrao Ramdas Shinde ..PETITIONER VERSUS State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate with Mr S.S. Chapalgaonkar for the petitioner; Mr V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondent no.1; Mr S.P. Shah, Advocate for respondents no.2, 3 & 4; Mr P.V. Mandlik, Senior Advocate with Mr Amol Gandhi for respondent no.5. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 11th September, 2009 PER COURT : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside the resolution passed by the Standing Committee of respondent - Corporation on 15.6.2009, pursuant to which the work order has been issued to respondent no.5. 2. We have heard Shri V.J. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner; Shri V.H. Dighe, learned A.G.P. on behalf of respondent no.1; Shri S.P. Shah, learned Counsel for respondents no.2, 3 & 4 and Shri P.V. Mandlik, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.5. 3. A tender notice came to be published inviting tenders for various works, out of which the petition concerns work at sr.nos.1 & 2 in the said tender notice dated 18.5.2009. Works at item no.1 related to installation of 475 H.P. Vertical Turbine (V.T.) pump and work at item no.2 related to installation of 150 H.P. V.T. pump set at Malegaon Pumping Station. The period of completion of the said work was 45 days and 30 days, respectively with the estimated cost being Rs.52,49,870/- and Rs. 35,32,200/-, respectively. It appears that the petitioner was one of the tenderers who had submitted his tender. 4. The petitioner by this petition has contended before us that the fifth respondent to whom the contract has been awarded was ineligible on account of the following reasons :- 1. Registration in Category A/1 with PWD or Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran or B & C. 2. VAT Registration 3. Authorization from Manufacturer of VT Pump 4. Electrical Contractor's License 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the note prepared by the authorities in respect of individual evaluation of tenders of the tenderers to urge before us that the respondent no.5 was ineligible. In the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the fifth respondent being ineligible his tender ought not to have been considered. 6. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. Respondent no.5 in his affidavit in reply states that about six tenders were issued and at paragraph 4 the names of the tenderers are given. It is the contention of the respondents that the conditions which the petitioner claims were not fulfilled by the respondent no.5 are conditions which were never contemplated by the tender notice. Shri S.P. Shah, learned Counsel for respondents no.2, 3 & 4 has invited our attention to the tender notice. According to Shri Shah, learned Counsel for respondents the possession of the valid Electrical Contractor's license is applicable in respect of works from sr.no.3 to 5. Respondent no.5 has been awarded work at sr.no.1 & 2 and, therefore, it was not incumbent for respondent no.5 to have possessed a license as contended by the petitioner. In respect of the other conditions also, the learned Counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to the tender notice wherein VAT registration and authorization from the manufacturer of V.T. pump has not been made mandatory. According to Shri Amol Gandhi, learned Counsel for respondent no.5 the fifth respondent had produced the requisite authorization. Shri Gandhi, therefore, contends that the grounds which are urged in the petition are sans merit as these are not the conditions which are required to be fulfilled by a successful tenderer. 7. Shri P.V. Mandlik, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.5 has invited urged before us that the work order came to be issued on 17.6.2009 and the fifth respondent has completed about 60% of the work. The additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.5 discloses the works which have been completed by the respondent no.5 and the works which are incomplete and nearing completion. 8. Be that as it may, according to us the tender notice does not require that the tenderer should have VAT registration, Authorization from the manufacturer of V.T. Pumps and should possess Electrical Contractor's license. The tender notice contemplates that tenderer should be registered in category A-1 either with the Public Works Department or the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran or B. & C. The fifth respondent admittedly does not possess the aforesaid registration from the authorities at Maharashtra. The fifth respondent is a Contractor hailing from Madhya Pradesh. The respondents in their affidavit have pointed out that fifth respondent had been employed by the Dhule Municipal Corporation on several occasions earlier and had performed his duty to the complete satisfaction of the authorities. It is further stated that as a contractor the fifth respondent is registered with the requisite bodies in Madhya Pradesh but not in Maharashtra. What appears to have been an overwhelming factor which had tilted the scales in favour of the fifth respondent is that the fifth respondent had offered a discount of 25% on the estimated value of the work. The petitioner had offered only 0.5% discount on the estimated value of the work. The offer of the fifth respondent resulted in a mammoth saving of 11.5 Lakhs. This appears to have weighed with the authorities in awarding the work to fifth respondent. 9. The period of contract has virtually come to an end, in the sense that the contract period was 45 and 30 days, respectively. The fifth respondent has been granted extension for completion of the work. In the light of the fact that nearly 60% of the work has been completed and the fact that the conditions which are urged by the petitioner were not the conditions contemplated by the tender notice, we are not inclined to interfere in this petition. The respondent no.5 substantially holds the qualification in respect of registration in category A-1 though not with the P.W.D., Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran or B. & C. But on that score alone we are not inclined to quash and set aside the acceptance of the tender particularly as 60% of the work is completed and the period of contract has come to an end, though in our initial order we had stated that the fifth respondent would not claim any equities in law. We, however, caution respondents not to deviate from the terms and conditions of the tender in future while awarding contracts. 10. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed summarily with no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/wp3960.09