Bombay High Court Orders Restoration Of Tender Process For Grant Of Central Store Office, Calls Authority’s Decision Arbitrary
The Bombay Excessive Court docket has ordered the restoration of the tender course of for the grant of the Central Retailer Workplace whereas observing that the Tendering Authority made a aware distinction between warehouses and the Central Retailer Workplace within the tender doc, and desire should have been granted accordingly. The Excessive Court docket additionally discovered the tender circumstances to be clear and unambiguous.
The Petitioner had approached the Bombay Excessive Court docket looking for cancellation of the tender course of in pursuance of the Tender Discover issued by the Respondents for the grant of lease of 16 warehouses and a Central Retailer Workplace for a tenure of 30 years.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne mentioned, “The tendering authority itself has drawn a aware distinction between 16 warehouses and one Central Retailer Workplace within the Tender Doc. Having performed so, it should have restricted the desire clause solely in respect of bidders making use of for allotment of warehouses. Utility of desire Clause 4(IV) to bidder making use of for allotment of Central Retailer Workplace is clearly faulty. For the reason that tender circumstances are clear and unambiguous, in our view, Clause 4(IV) had no software whereas allotting the Central Retailer Workplace premises, which is clearly distinct from the 16 warehouses as per the Tender Doc itself.”
Senior Advocate Anil V. Anturkar represented the Petitioner, whereas Senior Advocate Kevic Setalwad represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Respondents had floated a young for the grant of lease for 5 years in respect of its Central Retailer Workplace. The Petitioner was profitable within the mentioned tender course of and was granted a lease in respect of the Central Retailer Workplace for the interval from March 1, 2013, to February 23, 2018. It was the case of the Petitioner that upon the expiry of the tenure of the lease, extensions have been granted to him. Within the 12 months 2023, the second Respondent revealed a Tender Discover for the grant of a license in respect of the Central Retailer Workplace for 30 years.
Although the Petitioner and the fourth Respondent submitted a monetary bid on the similar price, a choice was taken to allot the lease in respect of the Central Retailer Workplace to the fourth Respondent by making use of the desire clause within the tender doc, because the fourth Respondent had submitted a bid for extra variety of warehouses. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the Excessive Court docket.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the tender doc, the Bench noticed that underneath Clause 4(IV) of the tender doc, desire was required to be given within the choice course of to the bidder submitting bids for a most variety of warehouses. The fourth Respondent had submitted bids in respect of a complete of 9 premises whereas the Petitioner had submitted a bid just for one premise.
One of many arguments raised by the Petitioner was that the Tendering Authority had made a aware distinction between the warehouses and the Central Retailer Workplace. The Bench discovered appreciable drive in the submission of the Petitioners that Clause 4(IV) makes use of the phrase “warehouses” and doesn’t use the phrase “premises”. The Bench seen that Clause 4(IV) of the Tender Doc supplied for a grant of desire to the bidder submitting bids in respect of the utmost variety of ‘warehouses’. If the Tendering Authority meant to use desire clause 4(IV) even to the Central Retailer Workplace, it should have used the phrase “premises” relatively than the phrase “warehouses” in Clause 4(IV).
It was additional seen that there have been a number of clauses within the Tender Doc, which indicated {that a} aware distinction was made by the Tendering Authority between warehouses and the Central Retailer Workplace whereas implementing the impugned tender course of. “Thus the suitable to apply for allotment of greater than premises was restricted solely in respect of ‘16 warehouses’, thereby drawing a aware distinction between ‘warehouses’ and ‘Central Retailer Workplace”, it held.
The Bench discovered the choice of the tendering authority in granting desire to the fourth Respondent by software of Situation No.4 (IV) to be arbitrary and irrational. Thus, setting apart the allotment of the Lease of Central Retailer Workplace in favor of the fourth Respondent and restoring the tender course of qua the Central Retailer Workplace, the Bench ordered, “After holding the renegotiations, Respondent Nos.1 to three shall allot lease in respect of Central Retailer Workplace to the entity providing larger price. Besides the Petitioner and Respondent No.4, no different bidder shall be entitled to take part in such renegotiation course of.”
Trigger Title: Huge Media Community Pvt. Ltd v. The State of Maharashtra (Impartial Quotation: 2025:BHC-OS:8972-DB)
Look
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Anil V. Anturkar, Advocates Harshvardhan Suryavanshi, Sandeep Dubey, Piyush Deshpande
Respondents: Senior Advocate Kevic Setalwad, Authorities Pleader P.H. Kantharia, Extra Authorities Pleader Jyoti Chavan, AGP Nazia Sheikh, Advocates Aseem Naphade, Chaitra Rao, Meera Parmar, Jatin Sheth
