Vineet Sing Construction Co. Pvt Ltd., Thr. Auth. Officer, Adv. Sachin Kulkarni v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Water Resource Dept., Mumbai And Others

2024:BHC-NAG:11839-DB 930-WP-5955-24.odt 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.

OF 20 Vineet Sing Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Abhyankar Nagar, Nagpur, O/a Kashyap Complex Jarhabhata, Indu Udyan Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhatisgarh -vsState of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Water Resource Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and the Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri G. C. Khond, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri N. S. Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : October 11, 2024 1.

Mr P. B. Patil, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 have placed an affidavit affirmed by the Executive Engineer, Lift Irrigation Project Division, Tirora, District Gondia, which is taken on record.

2.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the previous day and even today in regard to grievance of rejection of his technical bid on 25/09/2024 for the reasons that have specifically set out at page 1049 of the petition.

The disqualification being not only on the ground of nonfurnishing the PTEC and PTRC but also because of the petitioner not being certified to be engaged in similar work. 3.

The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a certificate dated 05/08/2024 issued by the Office of Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division, Manendragarh (C.G.). When Mr Patil has confronted us with the specification of the scope of work which includes Earth work, Structures as well as Canal Lining work with the specifications set out

930-WP-5955-24.odt 2/2 in the tender notice, and when we expressed our prima facie view that the work indicated in the certificate and the one which is desired by the tendering Authority is identical, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition.

The writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. No order as to costs.

(Abhay J. Mantri, J.) (Bharati Dangre, J.) Asmita