BHAGWATI BUILDERS Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING
LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-89
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Decided on June 17,2022

Bhagwati Builders Appellant
VERSUS
Maharashtra State Warehousing Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(2.) Respondent No.1 by tender notice No.18 had invited bids of eligible contractors for execution of the work of construction of 1/3000 Mt Cap. Pre Engineered Wh Bldg with Ancillary Works at Amgaon, District Gondia. Various bidders including the Petitioner had submitted their bids in response to the tender notice No.18 and upon due evaluation of the bids, submitted by the bidders, bid of the Petitioner was found to be lowest and it was decided to award the contract to the Petitioner. The petitioner was informed accordingly and was called upon to deposit Rs.70,91,948.00 as a security performance amount before 5/3/2021, by letter dtd. 26/2/2021 issued to it by the Respondent No.1. The Petitioner was informed that upon it's failure to deposit the said amount within the time given, the work shall be awarded to second lowest bidder. The Petitioner was also requested to give it's explanation as well as rate analysis showing the ability of the Petitioner to perform the awarded work at the rate submitted by it, which was 24.28% below estimated cost, by maintaining the quality.
(3.) In response to the said letter dtd. 26/2/2021, the Petitioner deposited the security performance amount by a Demand Draft on 5/3/2021 and gave it's explanation by it's letter dtd. 5/3/2021 that since it had already purchased requisite material, quality of work will not be affected, despite it's lower quote. The Petitioner did not however, submit any rate analysis along with letter dtd. 5/3/2021. The Petitioner submitted it's rate-analysis with further explanation by it's letter dtd. 22/3/2021 and assured that in- spite of huge deficit in the estimated rate and the rate quoted by the Petitioner, the Petitioner would not compromise on quality and would complete his work as per the guidance of Respondent No.1. By this letter, the Petitioner also requested Respondent No.1 to execute the work agreement and issue work order in it's favour.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.