42-WP-4576-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4576 OF 2026 M/s. Anuni Infrastructure Thr. Partner Sachin Tukaram Patil ...Petitioner. Versus State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Urabn Development And Another ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Kalpesh Uttam Patil for the Petitioner. Ms. Tejas J. Kapre AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Prasad Pradeep Kulkarni a/w Nakul V. Shukla, Amol Deshinge & C. J. Gaikwad for Respondent No. 2. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : September 24, 2026. P. C. : 1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned tender condition no. 6.1.14 in the B-1 tender issued by the Karad Municipal Council for the development of Namo Udyan on plot no. 468/A/10 situated within the limits of Karad City, District Satara. 2. In September, 2025, the respondent no. 1 (Urban Development Department) approved ₹394 crores to build Namo Udyan across 394 Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats in the State and sanctioned ₹1 crore for each garden across participating Municipal Councils and Nagar Harish 1 of 7 HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Digitally signed by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date: 2026.09.28 11:00:17 +0530 42-WP-4576-2026.doc Panchayats. Respondent no. 2, Chief Oicer, Karad Municipal Council, published the B-1 tender for the development of Namo Udyan on 7th August, 2026. 3. The petitioner submitted its bid on 14th August, 2026. It is pleaded that respondent no. 2 did not hold any pre-bid meeting, and a representation came to be addressed on 14th August, 2026 contending that clause 6.1.14 is unreasonable and that the same be deleted. 4. In response thereto, respondent no. 2 addressed a communication dated 18th August, 2026 calling upon the petitioner to submit the Namo Garden work order and bid capacity certiied by a Chartered Accountant. Being aggrieved by non-response to the representation of the petitioner seeking deletion of condition 6.1.14, the present petition has been iled. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken this Court through clause 6.1.14, which prescribes the experience of successfully developing a Namo Udyan as a qualifying criterion. He submits that the tenders which are loated by other Municipal Councils do not contain such a condition, and points out to the Rahimatpur Nagar Parishad tender as well as the Malkapur Municipal Council tender. He submits that the imposition of such a condition by the Karad Municipal Council is therefore arbitrary. He would further point the representation made by the petitioner to respondent no. 2 calling upon to delete the said Harish 2 of 7 42-WP-4576-2026.doc condition. Drawing support from the decision in the case of Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ldt. vs. State of Chhattisgarh And Others : [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2119], he submits that in case of Government tenders, without adequate reason, no person can be excluded, which constitutes an arbitrary action which is liable to be quashed. He submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the principle of non- discrimination is embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and that the doctrine of a level playing ield is an important concept while construing Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Karad Municipal Council would submit that the petitioner is precluded from challenging the tender conditions, having participated in the tender process and submitting the bid. He submits that this Court in the case of Alankit Assignments Limited vs. Union of India; [2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2509] has precisely considered an identical issue and has held that after participation, it is not open to a petitioner to challenge the criteria of evaluation or any other condition of the RFP document. He will also rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Global Energy Ltd And Another vs. Adani Exports Ltd And Others ; [(2005) 4 SCC 435], holding that the terms of an invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny and the courts cannot whittle down the terms of the tender as they are in the realm of contract, unless they are wholly arbitrary, Harish 3 of 7 42-WP-4576-2026.doc discriminatory, or actuated by malice. 7. We have considered the submissions and perused the tender documents. Clause 6.1.14 of the tender document reads as under: “6.1.14. “The bidder shall have experience of successfully developing Namo Udyan (Namo Garden). A copy of the relevant Work Order shall be submitted along with the tender as documentary proof of such experience.” 8. The tender has been loated for building a Namo Udyan, and the Karad Municipal Council has prescribed the qualifying experience criteria of successful development of Namo Udyan. It is not disputed that the petitioner has participated in the bid process and the argument on behalf of the petitioner that, in the event the petitioner had not participated, a counter-argument would have been advanced that, as the petitioner has not participated, he cannot challenge the tender conditions. We are not inclined to accept the said submission. The tender was loated on 7th August 2026, and the petitioner was aware of the tender conditions; and in fact had submitted representation to the Municipal Council seeking deletion of condition 6.1.14. It was therefore open to the petitioner to approach this Court claiming that he satisies all eligibility criteria except condition 6.1.14, which is arbitrary, discriminatory, or has been included to favor any particular party, all of which reasons are permissible for challenging a tender condition. The Harish 4 of 7 42-WP-4576-2026.doc petitioner participated in the tender process and submitted all requisite documents with the tender bid on 14th August 2026, and thereafter has iled the present petition on 10th September 2026. This Court is informed that, in the meantime, the technical bids were opened. 9. The decision in the case of Alankit Assignments Ltd. (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held in paragraph 18 as under : 18. It is to be further noticed that the Petitioner has participated in the bid and hence after participation, it is not open to the Petitioner to challenge the criteria of evaluation or any other condition of the RFP document. This view is fully supported by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sai Agencies, Jalna v. The State of Maharashtra. Paragraph No. 41.(2) of this judgment is relevant, which is extracted hereinbelow; "41. (2) Validity Petitioner has challenged the validity of condition No. 3 of said Tender. Petitioner states that this condition restricts the successful bidder from getting more than one work with respect to work Nos. 1 to 9 of said tender. After examining the material on record, we ind that condition No. 3 was applicable to tender Nos. 1 to 9 and those tenders were cancelled by Respondent No. 2 in its meeting dated 20th August, 2019. Thereafter, petitioner submitted tender for tender work Nos. 10 to 14. It indicates that petitioner was aware about cancellation of tender Nos. 1 to 9. The petitioner has suppressed this fact. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that a bidder who has participated in a tender Harish 5 of 7 42-WP-4576-2026.doc cannot turn around and challenge the terms and conditions of the tender and Tender conditions are immune from judicial review:" 10. The Division Bench has also held that the tender-loating authority has to be given latitude in formulating the tender conditions, for the reason that it is the best judge of the work which it requires to be performed by the selected bidder. While inviting tenders for executing a particular work, the tender-inviting authority is bound by the principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and reasonableness; however, for setting of terms of invitation, the tender-issuing authority has to be given greater leeway. The aspect of arbitrariness and unreasonableness is premised on the ground that the other Municipal Councils have not inserted the said condition. The same cannot constitute an unreasonable action on the part of the Karad Municipal Council, which has thought it it to insert the condition of having successfully completed the development of Namo Udyan, which is a speciic project. The petitioner cannot seek judicial review of the tender conditions without demonstrating arbitrariness or unreasonableness, or that the condition has been imposed to favor any particular party. 11. In the case of Global Energy Ltd. And Another (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 10 as under: “10. The principle is, therefore, well settled that the terms of Harish 6 of 7 42-WP-4576-2026.doc the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny and the courts cannot whittle down the terms of the tender as they are in the realm of contract unless they are wholly arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by malice. This being the position of law, settled by a catena of decisions of this Court, it is rather surprising that the learned Single Judge passed an interim direction on the very irst day of admission hearing of the writ petition and allowed the appellants to deposit the earnest money by furnishing a bank guarantee or a bankers' cheque till three days after the actual date of opening of the tender. The order of the learned Single Judge being wholly illegal, was, therefore, rightly set aside by the Division Bench.” 12. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in the case of Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra), however, in the present case, we do not ind that the imposition of condition 6.1.14 is arbitrary or unreasonable, or for the purpose of excluding any person from the tender process. 13. In light of the above, we decline to interfere in the tender process. Resultanty, petition fails and stands dismissed. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Harish 7 of 7