Bombay High Court

RAHUL SHANTARAM SONAWANEversusSHRISHRI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED THR ITS AUTHORIZED DIRECTOR AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that the authority’s decision to recall the tender and issue a fresh tender, as evidenced by the affidavit, justified the disposal of the writ petition, and the intervenor’s objection lacked merit.

Summary

ShriShri Infrastructure Private Limited filed a writ petition seeking amendment of a tender process, alleging procedural impropriety. The Executive Engineer submitted an affidavit stating that the responding authority had decided to recall the existing tender and re‑issue a fresh one within 30 days, citing technical difficulties and a vigilance committee report. An intervenor, Respondent No.6, contested the disposal, claiming to be the lowest bidder and alleging collusion between the petitioner and the authorities. The bench held that the administrative decision reflected in the affidavit was sufficient to render the writ petition moot and found no merit in the intervenor’s objection. Consequently, the writ petition and all related civil applications were disposed of, and the court ordered the amendment of a Suo Motu contempt petition.

Issues considered

What is the effect of an administrative decision, as reflected in an affidavit, on the continuance of a writ petition seeking amendment of a tender?
Does the objection of a lowest‑bidder intervenor prevent the court from disposing the writ petition on the basis of the authority’s decision to recall the tender?

Subjects

tender recall
public procurement
writ petition
administrative discretion
intervenor objection
contempt petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41192-DB


                                                 {1}                     ca9763-26.doc
                 drp
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9763 OF 2026
                                               IN
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.9646 OF 2024

                 ShriShri Infrastructure Private Limited Through
                 Its Authorized Director                                PETITIONER

                        VERSUS

                 The State of Maharashtra and Others                 RESPONDENTS

                                             .......
                 Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. G. K. Naik Thigale,
                 Advocate for the Petitioner

                 Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGP for Respondent - State

                 Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for Respondent No
                                              ....…
                                                 WITH
                               CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2538 OF 2025
                                             WITH
                               CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7718 OF 2026
                                             WITH
                               CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10189 OF 2026
                                             WITH
                                    SUO MOTO (CP) NO. 2 OF 2024

                              [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
                                       ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.]

                                      DATE : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                 ORDER :

                 1.     Affidavit in reply is filed by the Executive Engineer, to the

                 Civil Application, filed by the Petitioner seeking amendment of
                                      {2}                          ca9763-26.doc

the Writ Petition. In paragraph No. 7 of the said affidavit,

following statements are made :


      “7.    I say that, the answering respondent has considered the technical
      difficulty of the need for a revised sanction, the requirement for the said
      road and the report of the Vigilance Committee and arrived at a
      conclusion that the tender will be recalled and fresh tender will be issued
      in 30 days. Considering all the aspects thus, in view of the above the Civil
      Application and Writ Petition be disposed.”


2.    In the light of the above statements, nothing survives in

the Writ Petition. Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of.


3.    Learned Advocate for intervenor, added Respondent No.6,

strenuously opposed disposal of the Writ Petition contending that

he was the lowest bidder and his bid was accepted and,

therefore, the Respondents are acting hand in glove with the

Petitioner and hence they cannot unilaterally recall the tender

and issue fresh tender.


4.    We do not find any merit in the said submission. It is for

the authorities to take decision in that behalf and since they

have taken decision to recall the earlier tender and issue fresh

tender and as two years’ period is passed since floating of the

tender, we do not find any merit in the said submission.


5.    In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, all the pending Civil
                                 {3}                ca9763-26.doc

Applications are disposed of.


6.    Leave to add names of the contemnors party respondents

in the Suo Motu Contempt Petition No. 2 of 2024. Amendment be

carried out within four weeks.


7.    List the Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.2 of 2024 on 23 rd

October, 2026.



[ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ]                 [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
         JUDGE                                    JUDGE

drp/ca9763-26.doc

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…