S C T C I Joint Venture Through Its Authorised Representative v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Urban Development Dep And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 942 WRIT PETITION NO.3466 OF 2026 S C T C I JOINT VENTURE THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Mr. D.P. Palodkar, Advocate h/f Mr. S.S. Khoche, Advocate for petitioner Miss. Neha B. Kamble, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. R.D. Khadap, Advocate for respondent No.5 ...

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3888 OF 2026 IN WP/3466/2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3889 OF 2026 IN WP/3466/2026 ...

CORAM :

SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE :

02nd APRIL, 2026 ORDER :

.

Civil Application No.3888 of 2026 and Civil Application No.3889 of 2026 are in respect of amendment in view of subsequent events. Both civil applications stand allowed and disposed of. Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today.

942_WP_3466_2026 Heard learned Advocate Mr. D.P. Palodkar holding for learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Khoche for petitioner.

Issue notice to respondents. Learned AGP waives notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Learned Advocate Mr. R.D. Khadap waives notice for respondent No.5.

Petitioner, which is a Joint Venture, had taken part in the bids as per E-Tender notice scheme of 2025-26, wherein Joint Venture was not allowed to participate, however, as per the contention of petitioner, when the objections were taken by an Addendum to notice Joint Venture was allowed and even the Joint Venture was defined. Thereafter by Corrigendum dated 20.02.2026 those bids were cancelled on technical reasons and again it was floated a fresh, which was in respect of 30 works and thereby the estimated costs was then increased. Again the Joint Venture was not allowed and there were other changes in the tender conditions. Now, the petitioner is challenging the said condition of not allowing the Joint Venture to participate and according to petitioner, the fresh conditions are with ulterior motive, those changes are arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned Advocate for petitioner as well as respondent No.5 admit that the technical bid has been opened and the financial bids are also

942_WP_3466_2026 open. Both of them say that the work order has not been issued. Under such circumstance, till next date the work order shall not be issued and in the meantime, there shall be affidavit-in-reply, especially by respondent No.5, to be filed within a period of one week. Copy of same be given to other side, in advance.

Place the matter for further consideration on 15.04.2026, high on board.

( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd