Bombay High Court M/S. Joshi Freight Carriers, Thr. ... vs Central Ware Housing Corporation, ... on 7 April, 2017 Judgment wp5790.16 1 NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 5790 OF 2016. M/s. Joshi Freight Carriers, a Proprietary concern, through its Proprietor Shri Anil Biharilal Joshi, aged about 39 years, Occupation Business, having its office at Beside Hotel Residence Park, Agra Road, Dhulia, Maharashtra 424 311. ....PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. Central Ware Housing Corporation, through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Mumbai, Sector 20, Near APMC Fruit Market, Washi, Navi Mumbai 400 703. 2. M/s. Subline Warehousing Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Shri Awesh Zunzunwala, flat No.702, Rachna Galaxy, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur 440 010. 3. M/s. B. Balanagulu, Flat No. 302, 3rd Floor, Plot no.16, 17, 18, Sriman Sai & Kalyan Arcade, Miyapur X Road, Miyaur, Hyderabad 500 049. ::: Uploaded on 10/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on 12/04/2017 00:38:42 ::: Judgment wp5790.16 2 4. M/s. Sun Sun Roadways, Flat No.502, Sairaj CHS Ltd., Sector 29, Washi, Navi Mumbai. ....RESPONDENTS . Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate with Shri R.S. Kurekar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. C.V. Kale, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate with Mr. R. Dawada, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. S.M. Ghodeshwar, Advocate for respondent no.4. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ. Date of Reserving the Judgment : 02.03.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 07.04.2017 JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner a Company, questions communication dated 09.09.2006 holding that petitioner does not satisfy experience criterion and therefore, is not eligible to participate in tender for handling and transportation work of ::: Uploaded on 10/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on 12/04/2017 00:38:42 ::: Judgment wp5790.16 3 food grains and allied materials at C.W. Washim. This warehouse at Washim is of respondent no.1. 2. On 04.10.2016, while issuing notice in the matter, this Court directed that financial bids shall not be opened. Thereafter applications for intervention were filed and the same were allowed. Those intervenors who are other participants in tender process have been added as intervenor/respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. 3. As interim orders were operating and the matter pertains to contract of movement of food grains, as requested by the parties jointly it has been hard finally by issuing Rule and making the same returnable forthwith. Accordingly, we have heard Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel with Shri R.S. Kurekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri C.V. Kale, learned Counsel for respondent no.1, Shri R.S. Parsodkar, with Shri R. Dawada, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 and Shri S.M. Ghodeshwar, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. 4. Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel invited attention to Clause 4 of the etender notice dated 31.05.2016 to urge that there eligibility conditions require at least completion of 25% of the estimated value of ::: Uploaded on 10/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on 12/04/2017 00:38:42 ::: Judgment wp5790.16 4 construction to be awarded in one single contract or 50% of the estimated value of contrac