C/SCA/4510/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4510 of 2024 ================================================================ SHREE BHAVANI TRADING COMPANY Versus JUNAGADH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. ================================================================ Appearance: MR MEHUL SHAH SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR JENIL M SHAH(7840) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR. VIRAJ HARGOVIND DESAI(14245) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Date : 09/10/2025 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the action of the respondents in rejecting the bid document at the preliminary stage. 2. In the order dated 09.05.2024, the Coordinate Bench, while perusing the original file, has observed thus : “Mr. Vishal Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner, seeks permission to join successful bidder as party respondent no.2 herein. NOTICE to the newly added party returnable on 18.06.2024. Heard Mr. Mehul Shah, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Vishal Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner. According to his submission though affidavit-in- reply is filed by the respondent – Municipal Corporation, it has not dealt with the very important aspect of the petition, which is mentioned in paragraph 6 in respect of production of incomplete documents, which are compulsorily to be produced, attested, is not dealt with in affidavit-in-reply. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent– Corporation is not able to answer it from the affidavit-in- reply dealing with paragraph 6 of the petition. However, vide our order dated 08.05.2024, the entire file of the tender process was called for and from the documents contained in C/SCA/4510/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2025 the file, he is unable to show production of solvency certificate of nationalized bank by the successful bidder duly attested by him, which was required to be produced, attested and there is a specific footnote in Clause 5D of the terms and conditions mentioning that no exemption is allowed for solvency certificate. Thus, the ground on which the petitioner is held to be disqualified even successful bidder is also, after hearing of the necessary parties, can be held to be disqualified whereas the Corporation has not only held him successful bidder but issued even the work order in favour of R.K. Corporation. By way of ad-interim relief, the respondent – Corporation is hereby injuncted to carryout further proceedings on a concluded tender process. Meaning thereby, even if there is any work order is issued it has to be immediately stayed. Newly added party – respondent no.2 even if has been issued work order he shall not carryout the same any further henceforth till further order is passed by this Court.” 3. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for hearing on a couple of occasions. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehul Shah, appearing with learned advocate Mr.Jenil M. Shah for the petitioner, has further pointed out that, apart from the lacunae which have been recorded by the learned Single Judge, there are further discrepancies committed by the respondent–Corporation in terms of Paragraph Nos.5A(2) and 5D of the bid document, lacunae in Statement ‘C’ of the bid document, and paragraph No.7.3 of the General Information of the applicant. 4. We have also noticed that, though a specific contention has been raised by the petitioner in his writ petition as well as in the rejoinder, the same has not been dealt with in the affidavit-in-reply. When the matter was taken up for hearing, and serious omissions were pointed out to learned advocate C/SCA/4510/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2025 Mr.Munshaw in the first half, he, on the instructions from the officer who had perused the original files, was unable to satisfy the queries of this Court. Hence, he was instructed to take appropriate instructions from the highest authority. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, in the second half, at the outset, has very fairly pointed out that it is not disputed that all the bidders have submitted the bid documents with different omissions and, with these lacunae staring at the face of the Corporation, it would be apposite to go for a fresh tender. 6. Under the circumstances, in light of the aforesaid fair stance taken by the respondent-Corporation, we allow the respondent-Corporation to float a fresh tender for the present contract/work. We expect that, while examining the bids, all the conditions of the tender/bid document shall be scrupulously followed by the Corporation. No relaxation of any nature, de hors the conditions of the tender, shall be allowed in favour of any of the parties. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the tender in question would not survive. Sd/- . (A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Sd/- . (L. S. PIRZADA, J) Hitesh / SNB-3 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00195), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 14/10/2025 17:28:35