1 WP / 12339 / 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 10 WRIT PETITION NO. 12339 OF 2026 R. M. BHALERAO THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAVINDRA MADHUKAR BHALERAO VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Advocate for petitioner : Mr. N.B. Khandare, Sr. Advocate h/f. Mr. A.D. Sonkawade AGP for the respondent – State : Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya Advocate for respondent no. 3 : Mr. Milind M. Patil (Beedkar) Advocate for respondent no. 4 : Mr. V.D. Hon, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. A.V. Hon ... CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 23 SEPTEMBER 2026 ORAL ORDER : Heard learned senior Advocate Mr. Khandare for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Patil for respondent no. 3, learned senior advocate Mr. Hon for respondent no. 4 and learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the work order issued by respondent no. 2 in favour of respondent no. 4 for operation of the water supply scheme for the city of Amalner under Amalner Municipal Council. The tender was for the period up to 31.03.2027. 2026:BHC-AUG:43645-DB 2 WP / 12339 / 2026 3. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner happens to be L-1, the work order is issued in favour of respondent no. 4 whose financial bid was higher than that of petitioner’s. The econd ground is that the work order was issued for about one year when the tender notice stipulated period till 31.03.2027. The third ground is that certain other conditions are there in the work order which are different from those mentioned in the advertisement. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Khandare vehemently submits that the main ground for rejection of the petitioner's bid is that, from the amount quoted by the petitioner, it does not appear that the petitioner would be able to pay wages to the employees engaged for the work in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. He submits that if the wages are paid in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act, merely by looking at the amount quoted by the petitioner, an inference cannot be drawn that the payment to the employees would not be in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act. Learned advocate Mr. Khandare tenders an affidavit on record. The same is taken on record. 5. Mr. Khandare further submits that instead of accepting the bid of the petitioner, the bid of Respondent No. 4, which is higher, has been accepted. According to him, this has caused financial loss to the Municipal Council and is against public interest, as the Council would 3 WP / 12339 / 2026 be required to pay a higher amount. He further submits that when the tender notice was only for the period up to 31.03.2027, while issuing the work order, the period could not have been extended beyond the period mentioned in the tender notice. He further submits that certain conditions have now been introduced in the work order, including the condition regarding payment of PF amount through the Bank/online mode, etc. He, therefore, submits that the work order dated 27.08.2026 deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also informed during course of hearing that the tender notice is already challenged in the Civil Court by way of a Regular Civil Suit. 6. In support of his submissions, Mr. Khandare relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Banshidhar Construction Private Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., (2024) 10 SCC 273 and Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Odisha and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2368. 7. Learned advocate Shri. Patil vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that the tender process was completed and thereafter, it was placed before the standing committee. He further submits that the petition has been filed after issuance of the work order and, therefore, the petition may not be entertained. He submits that the handwritten conditions are not new conditions introduced for the first time in the work order, but were already part of the tender conditions. 4 WP / 12339 / 2026 8. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hon also vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that in matters relating to the tender process, the jurisdiction of this Court in exercise of judicial review is limited. It is not necessary that the work should invariably be allotted to the lowest bidder. In the present case, the authorities have duly verified the documents and arrived at their decision. He submits that this Court need not interfere with the decision taken by the tendering authority. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. In Banshidhar Construction Private Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered with the tender process even after the contract had proceeded further. However, in the said case, the successful bidder had itself failed to satisfy the mandatory eligibility conditions and had not furnished the requisite documents in terms of the notice inviting tender, despite which its bid was accepted. It was in those peculiar facts that the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered with the tender process. We find that the factual situation in the present case is materially different. 10. Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Petition. The Petition therefore stands dismissed. If the petitioner wants to pray for damages etc., it is open for him to avail an appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 5 WP / 12339 / 2026 11. The observations in the petition are only for the purpose of deciding the present Petition. [ JITENDRA JAIN ] [ KISHORE C. SANT ] JUDGE JUDGE arp/