R M BHALERAO THR ITS PROPRIETOR RAVINDRA MADHUKAR BHALERAOversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:43645-DB

                                                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.
                                 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/