AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner in the year 2010 participated in a tender floated by the respondent Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (for short ""MCGM"")
for supplying installation and commissioning of IP based CCTV cameras for surveillance at Bhandup Complex, Pise - Panjrapur Complex, Dam sides
in the out-of city division. The petitioner was successful in the tender process and has stated to have successfully executed the supply, installing and
commissioning of the ordered equipments. Also, a comprehensive maintenance contract (CMC) was awarded to the petitioner for a period of five
years, which was to expire on November 30, 2020. On the expiry of such contract, the MCGM floated a fresh tender (E-tender Bid Invitation No.
7100189291) which was for comprehensive maintenance contract of CCTV surveillance system of the Bhandup Complex, Vehar Lake, Tansa,
Vaitarna, Pise Panrapur Complex for a period of three years. The last date for sale of tenders and submission of packets in the three packet tender
format was April 23, 2021 up to 12 hours which was extended by the MCGM to April 30, 2021. Packet C (commercial bid) was opened on May 7,
2021. A second corrigendum was issued whereby the last date for submission of tender was extended to May 4, 2021 and the commercial bid was to
be opened on May 4, 2021.
It is the petitioner's case that on May 4, 2021 the petitioner logged on to the E-portal at 9.00 in the morning. The petitioner however, alleges that it
was unable to submit the bid due to technical problems on the website, when at 11.14 hours a message was received to the effect ""transaction not
possible since bid 8101029050 currently locked"". The petitioner was therefore unable to submit the bid despite the situation being appraised to the
MCGM.
The petitioner has stated that, accordingly the petitioner by its email dated May 4, 2021 addressed to the respondents at 12.30 hours informed the
MCGM of the difficulties and requested for extension of time to submit its bid. It is the petitioner's categorical averment in para 15 of the petition, that
packets ""A' and ""B' were kept ready for submission by the petitioner and had the petitioner been able to submit packet ""C"" (commercial bid), all
documents would have been successfully submitted on-line. However, even at 13.15 hours the petitioner could observe that its documents were kept
in the 'HELD' category. On May 5, 2021, the MCGM replied to the petitioner at 13.32 hours inter alia rejecting the petitioner's request to extend time
to submit bid. The petitioner, hence, is aggrieved by the MCGM's action in not extending the time limit to submit its bid and/or alter the tender
programme. The petitioner contends that it has been denied a legitimate opportunity in participating in the tender process.
A reply affidavit has been filed by the MCGM categorically denying the entire case of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner is guilty of
suppression of material facts and have made misleading and false statements. It is stated that the initial due date of the tender was April 23, 2021
which was later extended to April 30, 2021, as per the request received from the prospective bidders in a pre- bid meeting and accordingly
corrigendum dated April 15, 2021 was issued. It is stated that the petitioner had suppressed its email dated April 30, 2021 requesting that the date of
submission of EMD/bid be extended by one day to enable the petitioner to submit its bid and participate in the tender process. It is stated that on such
specific request of the petitioner, the tender due date was further extended upto May 4, 2021 i.e. by four days, although the petitioner had requested
only one day of extension to complete its bidding process. It is stated that although petitioner had sufficient time of four day's, still the petitioner started
bidding process again on the last date i.e. on May 4, 2021 and failed to complete the same. The petitioner, merely relying on some screen shots has
contended that it was unable to submit the bid allegedly due to technical problems. It is pointed out that the very same platform was available globally
to the intended participants. Also, on the vary same day (May 4, 2021) packets A and B of the other two bidders were successfully uploaded. No
complaints were received from the other bidders and there were no technical issues as alleged by the petitioners. In fact, the IT department of the
MCGM has always cooperated with the petitioner and proper steps for uploading the tender were informed well in advance. It is thus submitted that
accepting the petitioner's contention would completely derail the sanctity of the tendering process. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be
dismissed.
We have heard Mr.Marne, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Mastakar learned counsel for the MCGM. We have perused the record.
We may at the outset observe that the present petition appears to be an absolute abuse of the process of law. The petitioner certainly has
suppressed its email dated April 30, 2021 whereby the petitioner had requested for extension of one day to enable the petitioner to upload its bid.
Although the MCGM accepted such request and extended the time to submit the bid by four days, the petitioner waited till the last date i.e. till May 4,
2021 to upload its bid. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why within the first three days the petitioner did not upload its bid. It appears to us
that the reason is not too far to be seen, inasmuch as the petitioner being existing contractor was possibly exploiting a better commercial position. The
conduct of the petitioner was not at all bona fide in waiting till the last date to submit its bid under the e- tendering process. We cannot accept the
petitioners bald plea of a technical failure of the MCGM's website when the bids of others could be uploaded and successfully opened. In any event,
the issues as asserted by the petitioner are disputed questions of fact which would require evidence to be led for which writ proceedings would not be
maintainable.
We are clearly of the opinion that no case whatsoever has been made out for interference. We accordingly dismiss this petition with cost quantified
at Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today, failing which, steps be
taken by the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this court considering it to be arrears of land revenue.