← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/8101/2023disposed off

Shivsakshi Developers Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Shivaji Shinde v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

2023-07-14Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade2 pages

919-WP-8101-2023.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8101 OF 2023 SHIVSAKSHI DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SANJAY SHIVAJI SHINDE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ....

Mr. T. M. Venjane, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. S. G. Karlekar, AGP for the Respondent - State ....

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE:14.07.2023 PER COURT :- 1.

The petitioner is before us on account of a typographical mistake made at two places in his e-Procurement System, Government of Maharashtra, Bid Submission Confirmation.

2.

It is a bid information form which contains the details of the bidder. The petitioner'

s proprietory concern is known by its registered name as '

Shivsakshi Developers'

. By mistake, the bidders name is written as '

Shivsashi Developers'

. The details of Corporate Tenderer under which the petitioner entered the login ID, is correctly written as '

Shivsakshi' and below that, the

(( 2 )) 919-WP-8101-2023 company'

s name is mentioned as '

Shivsashi Developers'

. Below that is the column for entering the address of the petitioner, which is correctly mentioned as '

Shivsakshi'

. Rest of the form is without any error. The stage in the matter is that the technical bids are opened and the financial bids are yet to be opened.

3.

The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that the Respondents cannot, suo-moto, carry out this correction. If this Court orders the mistake to be corrected, the orders would be complied with.

4.

We find that an inadvertent mistake has occurred while typing the correct name of the Petitioner firm. At all the places in the bid submission form, the information is correctly mentioned except at two places where the alphabet '

k'

is missing.

5.

In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed. We direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as being a valid bidder to the extent of the technical bids. 6.

Needless to state, the petitioner would be considered while opening the financial bids.

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ] SMS