Rajesh Mandap Decorators Prop Rajesh Baburao Shinde v. The Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner And Others

WP 11190 23.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11190 OF 2023 Rajesh Mandap Decorators Prop. Rajesh Baburao Shinde ...

Petitioner

VERSUS

1) The Municipal Corporation Chatrapati Sambhajinagar and others ...

Respondents ...

Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. Biradar Ramrao Dhondiram

CORAM

: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

DATE : 06.09.2023 PER COURT :

Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. He submits that the respondent No. 1 has apparently floated a tender inviting bids for the paraphernalia to be provided including the sound, furniture etc. for a period of three days on account of 'Marathwada Muktisangram Sanskratik celebration' between 15th to 17th September 2023. He submits that though the tender notice has been published on 5th and the bids are to be made today by 5 p.m. already the respondent No. 3 has started work without there being any actual order and completion of the tender process. He would submit that due to shortest time, the competition is being avoided. The petitioner is unable to apply in such short time. Besides, the process is contrary to the Government resolution which mandates floating of ' E'

tenders for the works above Rs. 3,00,000/-.

2.

Since it is a matter of tender, we have our own limitations. If for the 1/2

WP 11190 23.odt exigency perceived by the respondent no. 1, it has floated a tender and urgently expected the bidders to come forward, that cannot be the ground to cause any interference.

3.

As far as the policy matter is concerned, again, without there being any record before us to demonstrate that the work sought to be allotted would be for more than Rs. 3,00,000/-, we even cannot undertake that scrutiny at this juncture. The petitioner who is supposed to participate in the bid could do so independently if he has the interest irrespective of the shortest duration within which he is to respond. The petition has been mentioned in the morning session in view of the exigency and that is why we have permitted the papers to be produced. However, we are not inclined to grant any relief.

4.

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) mkd/- 2/2