Bombay High Court
Raisoni Ventures Private Limited And … vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The … on 24 July, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-AUG:19363-DB
1 WP / 13820 / 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 13820 OF 2023
1] Raisoni Ventures Private Limited
through its authorized representative,
Shri. Sagar Sunil Raisoni
Age : 32 years, Occ : Business,
Designation : Authorised Signatory,
Having office address at : Plot No. 5A1,
CTS No. 6 & 7, Lotus House,
Lane No. E, Koregaon Park,
Pune 411 001
2] A.S. Enterprises,
Through its Proprietor,
Shri Ajay Dattatrya Londhe
Age : 42, Occu : Business,
Having office address at : Siddhivinayak
Apartment, Jaimala Nagar, Old Sangvi,
Pune 411 027
3] Quad Group,
A registered Partnership Firm
Through its authorized Partner,
Shri Akshya Vinod Mehta
Age : 32, Occu. : Business,
Having office address at : Plot No. 386,
Market Yard, Pune 411 036 .. Petitioners
Versus
1] The State of Maharasthra,
Through the Principal Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032
2] The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Region, Aurangabad
3] The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Circle (P.W.C.),
Aurangabad
4] The Executive Engineer,
Public Works (West) Division,
Aurangabad .. Respondents
...
Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre h/f. Mr. Pramod F. Patni
AGP for the respondent - State : Ms. Neha B. Kamble
...
2 WP / 13820 / 2023
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 16 JULY 2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 24 JULY 2025
JUDGMENT (PER - MANISH PITALE, J.) :
The petitioners herein have objected to the manner in
which the respondent – authorities of the Public Works Department
have proceeded with a ‘second call’, as per the scheme contemplated
under Government Resolution dated 27.09.2018, while dealing with a
situation where only a single bidder remains in the fray. According to
the petitioners, the facts and circumstances of the present case did not
demonstrate that only a single bidder remained in the fray and that in
any case, the specific stipulation in clause 4.3 of the Government
Resolution dated 27.09.2018 has not been followed to the hilt by the
said respondents. According to the petitioners, this smacks off
arbitrariness and hence the ‘second call’ needs to be cancelled and the
respondents ought to float a fresh tender in respect of the subject
development work.
2. As opposed to this, the respondents relied upon
Government Resolution dated 27.09.2018, particularly clause 4.4
thereof, to contend that all the necessary steps were taken in
consonance with the scheme contemplated in the said Government
Resolution. It is emphasized that the petitioners, in the earlier round
3 WP / 13820 / 2023
of litigation and in the present one also, have initiated litigation without
taking any steps to participate in the tender process and, therefore, as
per settled law, they ought not to be heard in the matter. It is submitted
that the interim order obtained by the petitioners has resulted in
development work i.e. construction of road being stalled for more than
1-1/2 year. In fact, the petition itself was circulated at the behest of the
respondent – authorities in the light of such development work being
stalled.
3. Before appreciating the rival contentions, it would be
necessary to briefly refer to the chronology of events.
4. The development work in question concerns Khultabad –
Mhaismal road (MDR-21) KM 0/00 to 11/500. The said work was
allotted to M/s ATR Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. It is a matter of record that
the said work could not be completed in the stipulated period of time
and an extension of one year was also granted. In this backdrop,
disputes arose between the said M/s ATR Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. and the
respondent – authorities, leading to initiation of arbitration proceedings
by the said entity.
5. In this situation, tender for balance work of KM 0/0 to 6/0,
was floated and it was allotted to one M/s GNI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
The respondents had to further issue a fresh tender on 09.08.2023, for
the balance length of the road from KM – 06/00 to 10/500. On
4 WP / 13820 / 2023
17.08.2023, a pre-bid meeting was held as the tender was floated in
terms of the scheme contemplated under Government Resolution
dated 27.09.2018. In the said meeting, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 raised
certain queries, to which the respondent – authority responded and an
addendum in the form of common set of deviations was issued and
incorporated in the tender document. This was done on 18.08.2023
and the tender document along with such common set of deviations
was put up on the website of the respondent – authority.
6. The petitioners filed writ petition no. 10886 of 2023,
alleging that terms of the tender document were violated, inasmuch as
the time period specified for the pre-bid meeting and raising queries,
was not adhered to by the respondents – authorities, resulting in lack of
opportunity to the petitioners and interested bidders for placing their
queries and suggestions before the respondents – authorities.
7. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the
respondents took a decision to cancel the said tender dated
09.08.2023 and accordingly, a statement was made before this Court.
By order dated 14.09.2023, this Court recorded statement of the
learned AGP representing the respondents that the tender had been
cancelled. It was recorded that since nothing survived in the said writ
petition, it stood disposed of.
5 WP / 13820 / 2023
8. On 09.10.2023, the respondents issued a further tender,
which according to them, was a ‘second call’ contemplated under
clause 4.3 of the Government Resolution dated 27.09.2018. It is this
document which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ
petition at the behest of the petitioners on the ground that the basic
requirement of existence of only one bidder in the fray was not satisfied
in the facts and circumstances of the present case and, therefore, the
‘second call’ claimed by the respondents, cannot be sustained. It was
further submitted that even if the contention of the respondents with
regard to the existence of only one bidder in the fray was to be
accepted, the tender document issued subsequently for the same work
on 09.10.2023, by the respondents cannot qualify as a ‘second call’, for
the reason that this document incorporated certain changes that could
not have been brought about as per clause 4.3 of the Government
Resolution dated 27.09.2018. The respondents again failed to hold a
pre-bid meeting. Denying opportunity to the petitioners and interested
bidders of placing their queries and giving suggestions on record,
further violated the said Government Resolution as also the terms of
the said new tender dated 09.10.2023. It was submitted that the
respondents had acted with vengeance, only to keep the petitioners
away from participating in the tender process, thereby showing the
arbitrary and discriminatory nature of the actions of the respondents.
6 WP / 13820 / 2023
9. On 01.11.2023, this Court recorded the aforesaid
contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and while issuing notice,
directed that the process as per the tender dated 09.10.2023, could go
on but it would not be finalized. As a consequence, the process could
not be finalized and the respondents have been pressing for hearing of
this petition in the light of the said development work being brought to a
halt.
10. Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners made submissions in consonance with the aforesaid
pleadings in the present writ petition, as also the grounds of challenge
raised therein. He emphasized that a proper reading of clause 4.3 of
the Government Resolution dated 27.09.2018, would show that the
tender floated on 03.10.2023 could never be called a ‘second call’. It
was a completely fresh tender process initiated by the respondents
after the initial tender process dated 09.08.2023 was cancelled. It was
submitted that this Court in its order dated 14.09.2023 clearly recorded
that the said tender had been cancelled and, therefore, the only option
available to the respondents, was to issue a fresh tender. The theory of
‘second call’ was floated by the respondents, only to deprive the
petitioners of their rightful claims.
11. It was further submitted that even if this was to be treated
as a ‘second call’, the respondents were duty bound under the scheme
7 WP / 13820 / 2023
as per the said Government Resolution dated 27.09.2018, to call a pre-
bid meeting. The tender document dated 09.10.2023 also
contemplated a pre-bid meeting and in similar circumstances
concerning other projects, the respondents – authorities themselves
even on second call, had called for a pre-bid meeting, thereby
demonstrating that in the present case, they were acting arbitrarily and
only with an intention to keep the petitioners out of the fray.
12. As regards the allegations made against petitioner no. 1
about connection with the afore-mentioned M/s. ATR Infra Project Pvt.
Ltd., it was submitted that petitioner no. 1 is a distinct legal entity and
the allegations are without any substance. It was submitted that in any
case, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are independent entities and there is no
question of any malice or revengeful attitude on their part to somehow
block the development project of construction of the said road. It was
further submitted that the tender document dated 09.10.2023 brought
about substantial changes as compared to the earlier tender document
dated 09.08.2023 and in that light, it could not be said to be a ‘second
call’ under any circumstances.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon judgments
of the Supreme Court in the cases of i) Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. V.
Indo Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd. and others; (1997) 1 Supreme Court
Cases 53, ii) W.B. State Electricity Board V. Patel Engineering Co.
8 WP / 13820 / 2023
Ltd. and others; (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 451 and the
judgment of this Court in the case of Watergrace Products Vs.
Nashik Municipal Corporation and others; 2025 SCC OnLine Bom
330.
14. On the other hand, Ms. Neha Kamble, learned AGP
submitted that the whole intention of the petitioners in filing the present
petition, is to somehow stall the development project. They have not
shown genuine interest in bidding for the said work, either in the first
round, when the tender was floated on 09.08.2023, or during the
second call initiated on 09.10.2023. It was submitted that since a pre-
bid meeting conducted in the context of tender document dated
09.08.2023, resulted in the common set of deviations being
incorporated in the tender, the insistence on pre-bid meeting even on
second call, on the part of the petitioners, is wholly unjustified. It was
emphasized that in the process undertaken pursuant to the tender
floated on 09.08.2023, only two entities remained in the fray and since
one of them stood disqualified, it was a clear case of a single bidder
covered under clause 4.3 of the Government Resolution dated
27.09.2018. It was submitted that thereafter the respondents issued the
second call. The petitioners never showed any interest in bidding in
pursuance of the second call and instead, rushed to this Court, raising
frivolous grounds, to somehow jeopardize the aforesaid project.
9 WP / 13820 / 2023
15. It was submitted that the alleged changes brought about in
the second call dated 09.10.2023, are absolutely minor and no case is
made out by the petitioners, to contend that the tender floated on
09.10.2023, is not a ‘second call’ and that it is a fresh tender process.
16. It was further submitted that the specific statement made in
the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, to the effect that petitioner
no. 1 is bent upon de1railing the entire project because M/s ATR Infra
Project Pvt. Ltd. entered into a dispute with the respondents, has not
been answered. One of the partners of M/s ATR Infra Project Pvt. Ltd.
is the father of the proprietor of petitioner no. 1. In fact, the said
M/s. ATR Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. Sub-contracted the work to an entity
called Raisoni Bothra Buildcon LLP of which the proprietor of the
petitioner no. 1, is one of the partners. It is because of the said
relationship that the petitioner no. 1 has repeatedly taken steps to
derail award of the work for the remaining portion of the road, without
even participating in the tender process initiated by the respondents. It
was submitted that therefore, this petition filed by the petitioners is
malicious and vengeful.
17. On the point of dis-entitlement of the parties not
participating in the tender process from raising objections concerning
the same, reliance was placed on judgments of this Court in the cases
of i) A.M. Yusuf Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and others;
10 WP / 13820 / 2023
2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1186, ii) Gypsum Structural India Pvt. Ltd.
V. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and others; 2023 SCC
OnLine Bom 683 and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
iii) National Highways Authority of India Vs. Gwalior-Jhansi
Expressway Limited; (2018) 8 Supreme Court Cases 243. On the
question of scope of entertaining the writ petition in tender and
contractual matters, reliance was placed on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric
Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) and others; (2023) 19
SCC 1.
18. This Court has considered the rival submissions. The
Supreme Court of India has considered the scope of jurisdiction of the
writ court while considering challenges to a tender process and in
contractual matters, right from the judgments in the cases of Tata
Cellular V. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 and Air India Ltd. V.
Cochin International Airport Ltd.; (2000) 2 SCC 617. It has been
emphasized that the writ Court would indeed examine the process, but
it would not enter into the merits of the decision taken by the authority.
It has been emphasized that while exercising the power of judicial
review in contractual and commercial matters, the writ Court would be
loathe to interfere unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides
or bias or irrationality is made out. In the said judgments, it has been
11 WP / 13820 / 2023
emphasized that the Courts must give fair play in the joints to the
Government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. The
said position is reiterated in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Tata Motors V. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply
and Transport Undertaking (BEST) and others (supra). While
considering the rival submissions, the said position of law has to be
kept in mind.
19. The present petition is the second round initiated by these
very petitioners in the context of the afore-said road construction work
pertaining to the balance length from KM 6/00 to 10/500. There is no
dispute about the fact that the said tender for incomplete work had to
be issued because the entire work of the Khultabad – Mhaismal road
awarded to M/s. ATR Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. could not be completed.
Since the dispute between the said entity and the respondents is
pending in arbitration proceedings, this Court refrains from making any
comments on the reasons why the entire work could not be completed.
Nonetheless, it is because of the fact that the work could not be
completed that initial part of the balance work was allotted to the said
M/s. GNI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. upon tender process being
undertaken. Thereafter, the present tender process had to be
undertaken by floating the tender on 09.08.2023, for the afore-
mentioned further balance incomplete work.
12 WP / 13820 / 2023
20. It is a matter of record that the petitioners participated in
the pre-bid meeting concerning the tender floated on 09.08.2023. They
raised certain queries and after taking into account the said queries,
certain changes / modifications were brought about in the tender
document incorporated as common set of deviations in the form of an
addendum. This was incorporated in the tender itself and published on
the website of the respondents. Thus, the parties intending to
participate in the process, were made aware about the common set of
deviations.
21. It is at this stage that earlier writ petition no. 10886 of 2023
was filed by the petitioners, raising various grounds and particularly
emphasizing upon the alleged lack of proper opportunity in the pre-bid
meeting, violation of conditions of the tender document itself as also
violation of the Government Resolution dated 27.09.2018.
22. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the
respondents took a decision to cancel the said tender and, accordingly,
the writ petition came to be disposed of on 14.09.2023, after recording
such statement made on behalf of the respondents. It was thereafter
that the tender dated 09.10.2023 came to be issued, which according
to the respondents, was a ‘second call’, as per clause 4.3 of the
Government Resolution dated 27.09.2018, while the petitioners claim
that it was a completely new tender process in the light of the
13 WP / 13820 / 2023
statement made before this Court, which resulted in disposal of writ
petition no. 10886 of 2023.
23. In order to examine as to whether the said tender dated
09.10.2023, can be treated as a ‘second call’ or whether it was an
entirely fresh tender process, the Government Resolution dated
27.09.2018, particularly clause 4.3 thereof will have to be analyzed.
24. Government Resolution dated 27.09.2018 was issued by
the respondent – State, in order to address certain situations that were
occurring during the process of such tenders being floated by the
respondents. The intention behind issuing the Government Resolution
dated 27.09.2018 was to introduce transparency and to address the
difficulties faced while awarding such contracts, particularly when
single a bidder remains in the fray. Clause 4.3 of the Government
Resolution dated 27.09.2018 specifically address such a contingency.
It provides that when only one single bidder (the Government
Resolution uses the expression single tender) remains in the fray, steps
are required to be taken, as incorporated in the aforesaid clause. It is
specifically provided that when two bidders remain in the fray, one of
whom stands disqualified, it shall be treated as a situation of single
tender / bidder.
25. The material placed before this Court sufficiently
demonstrates that in pursuance of the tender floated on 09.08.2023,
14 WP / 13820 / 2023
only two entities remained in the fray, one of whom stood disqualified.
Therefore, it is found that a situation of a single bidder arose and the
respondents were mandated to apply clause 4.3 of the Government
Resolution dated 27.09.2018, to the present case. We do not find any
substance in the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that
this was not a situation of a single bidder.
26. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that
even if this was a case of single bidder, in the light of the statement
made before this Court when writ petition no. 10886 of 2023 was
disposed of, the entire tender process stood cancelled and the
subsequent tender floated on 09.10.2023, was nothing but a fresh
tender which could not be christened as a ‘second call’. We are of the
opinion that the said contention will have to be considered on the
touchstone of the requirements of clause 4.3 of the aforesaid
Government Resolution and the chronology of events that emerges
from the material placed on record.
27. It is relevant to note that clause 4.3 of the said
Government Resolution stipulates that when a single bidder remains in
the fray, it shall be cancelled and new bids are to be invited without
making any changes in the tender already floated. If there are no
changes made, then the fresh tender call would be treated as a
‘second call’. It is further stipulated that after the second call, if only
15 WP / 13820 / 2023
one tender / bidder remains in the fray, then such bid should be opened
as per the established procedure and that there would not be any
requirement for again calling for fresh tender.
28. In the present case, it is to be noted that the tender
process was first initiated on 09.08.2023; the petitioners participated in
the pre-bid meeting and raised certain queries. This resulted in the
respondents considering such queries and suggestions, further
incorporating some of them in the form of an addendum to the tender,
to be treated as a common set of deviations under Government
Resolution dated 27.09.2018. The tender document incorporating the
common set of deviations was published on the website and it was
expected that interested bidders, including the petitioners would offer
their bids and the process would go ahead. Instead, writ petition
no. 10886 of 2023 was filed, which was eventually disposed of on
14.09.2023, recording the statement on behalf of the respondents that
the tender had been cancelled.
29. We find that at this stage, it cannot be disputed that only
one single tender / bidder remained in the fray and a situation was
created, whereby clause 4.3 had to be applied by the respondents.
The tender floated on 09.10.2023, therefore, qualified as a ‘second
call’. Whatever changes had to be incorporated, were included in the
16 WP / 13820 / 2023
common set of deviations and in that sense, the concerns of the
petitioners were also taken care of.
30. We also do not find any substance in the contention raised
on behalf of the petitioners that substantial changes were made in the
tender issued on 09.10.2023, as compared to the original tender after
incorporation of the common set of deviation. Some minor changes,
including changing the name of the project could not be said to create
a situation where clause 4.3 of the Government Resolution dated
27.09.2018, would not apply.
31. Thus, we find that the second call invited fresh bids on the
basis of the original tender incorporating the common set of deviations,
which took care of the queries and suggestions of the petitioners in the
pre-bid meeting concerning the tender dated 09.08.2023. Therefore,
insistence of the petitioners that there ought to have been another pre-
bid meeting in which they desired to participate, appears to be an
attempt on the part of the petitioners to delay / derail the entire tender
process. It is relevant to note that neither in the first round after the
tender document incorporated the common set of deviations did the
petitioners offer bids to participate in the tender process, nor did they
offer any bids or participate in the tender process in pursuance of the
second call / tender floated on 09.10.2023.
17 WP / 13820 / 2023
32. This demonstrates that the petitioners have been sitting on
the fence and at every stage, they have made efforts to either
challenge the tender process or to create doubts about its veracity by
alleging that the scheme contemplated under the Government
Resolution dated 27.09.2018, had been violated. This Court fails to
understand, as to what prevented the petitioners from offering their bids
immediately upon the second call dated 09.10.2023 being floated by
the respondents, particularly when their queries, concerns and
suggestions had been incorporated in the form of common set of
deviations in the original tender document itself by the respondents.
This gives an impression that the petitioners were and are interested
only in derailing the tender process and in that light, jettisoning the
entire remaining work of the Khultabad – Mhaismal road. It is
significant to note that till date, the petitioners have not participated in
the tender process at all.
33. It is in this context that the judgments relied upon by the
respondents become relevant. In the case of A.M. Yusuf (supra), a
Division Bench of this Court, in a similar situation, noted that the
petitioner therein took no steps to deposit the amount as per the notice
inviting tender. No efforts were taken to participate in the tender and,
therefore, the very locus of such a petitioner came under a cloud of
suspicion. It was held that such a petitioner, having opted not to
18 WP / 13820 / 2023
participate in the tender process, could hardly be said to have locus to
challenge the said process. In the case of Gypsum Structural India
Pvt. Ltd. (supra), another Division Bench of this Court recorded that
the petitioners therein even after participating in the pre-bid meeting,
chose to stay away from the tender process and, therefore, such a
petitioner had to be treated as a stranger. The Supreme Court in the
case of National Highways V. Gwalior (supra) also held that the
private party therein having failed to participate in the tender process,
cannot be heard to contend that it had acquired any right whatsoever.
34. Applying the said position of law to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, we find that the petitioners did not
take any steps to participate in the tender process or to offer their bids.
Even if the scheme contemplated under the Government Resolution
dated 27.09.2018 and the tender notices is to be appreciated, the
petitioners cannot be permitted to be fence sitters, showing no real
intention to participate in the tender process and yet picking holes in
the actions of the respondents.
35. In the present case, when certain queries were made and
suggestions were given by the petitioners, the respondents did issue
an addendum and incorporated the common set of deviations in the
tender document itself, yet, the petitioners made no effort to participate
in the tender process. Instead, they have repeatedly challenged the
19 WP / 13820 / 2023
same, resulting in a situation where development work of construction
of road has been stalled for about 2 years. Not a farthing has been
deposited for participating in the tender process and yet, the petitioners
have succeeded in delaying the award of contract for such
development work for almost two years.
36. This Court fails to understand what prejudice the
petitioners suffered either in the first process, particularly when
common set of deviations at their behest were incorporated in the
tender document or when the second call was issued by the
respondents. It is to be noted that there is a dire need of a proper road
between Khultabad and Mhaismal considering the large number of
tourists who visit Mhaismal.
37. The respondents have specifically stated in their reply
affidavit about how the petitioner no. 1, can be said to be acting mala
fide and with a revengeful attitude. It is specifically stated that M/s.
ATR Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., is having a running feud with the
respondents with regard to the entire work of Khultabad – Mhaismal
road allotted to it, in the form of pending arbitration proceedings. One
of the partners of M/s ATR Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. is the father of the
proprietor of petitioner no. 1. It is also a matter of record that the
proprietor of petitioner no. 1 is also a partner of M/s. Raisoni Bothra
Buildcon LLP, which was given a sub-contract by M/s. ATR Infra Project
20 WP / 13820 / 2023
Pvt. Ltd. for the work of Khultabad – Mhaismal road. This shows the
close relationship between the parties, although in law they may be
independent legal entities. The said allegations have not been
specifically denied in the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the
petitioners and such a situation gives credence to the specific
contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner no.1
is hellbent upon derailing the entire process of award of work of
remaining portion of the aforesaid road, in the backdrop of the dispute
between M/s ATR Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. and the respondents.
38. It is a matter of record that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had
raised queries in the first round. These queries had led to issuance of
the addendum and the common set of deviations incorporated in the
tender document itself. Therefore, we do not find any reason for the
petitioners to raise a hue and cry in respect of the second call when
their concerns had been already addressed in the aforesaid manner.
39. It is a matter of record that the petitioners did not show any
genuine interest in participating in the tender process even in the
second call, as a consequence of which only one single bidder has
remained in the fray. In such a situation, the respondents can be said
to be justified in applying clause 4.3 of the Government Resolution
dated 27.09.2018, to proceed to award the work to the said remaining
single bidder. It cannot be said that the respondents have not complied
21 WP / 13820 / 2023
scrupulously with the requirements of the Government Resolution
dated 27.09.2018. Therefore, reliance placed on behalf of petitioners
on judgment of Supreme Court in the case of W.B. State Electricity
Board V. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and others (supra), cannot of
any assistance to them.
40. We are also not in agreement with the petitioners that
major changes were made in the tender during the process of second
call, thereby violating clause 4.3 of the aforesaid Government
Resolution. The said contention has been raised only with a view to
further delay / derail the process of award of the tender and the work of
Khultabad – Mhaismal road, which in the first place ought to have been
completed by M/s ATR Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. In this context, the
petitioners are not justified in placing reliance upon judgment of Dutta
Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
41. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Vast Media Network Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others (writ petition (L) no. 36983 of 2024 – dated 19 June 2025),
also cannot take the case of the petitioners any further, for the reason
that the said judgment concerned interpretation of specific words used
in the tender document. In the present case, this Court is concerned
with the interpretation of clause 4.3 of the Government Resolution
dated 27.09.2018.
22 WP / 13820 / 2023
42. Considering the language of the said clause and applying
the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are
inclined to hold in favour of the respondents. For a long period of time,
the aforesaid development work i.e. construction of the remaining
portion of the Khultabad – Mhaismal road has been held-up due to the
interim order passed in the writ petition.
43. Since, we do not find any substance in the contentions
raised on behalf of the petitioners, the petition deserves to be
dismissed and interim order ought to be vacated at the earliest. In view
of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
44. Interim order is vacated and pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
[ Y.G. KHOBRAGADE ] [ MANISH PITALE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
[ad_1]
Source link