Bombay High Court
AUTOMARK INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT LTD AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PRIN. SEC. PWD AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Court held that it cannot interfere with the framing of tender conditions, and therefore dismissed the writ petitions.
Summary
The petitioners, a partnership firm and Automark Industries, challenged pre‑qualification conditions in eleven tenders issued by the Maharashtra State Infrastructure Development Corporation, alleging arbitrariness, discrimination, and violation of constitutional principles. They sought quashing of the tender conditions, a mandamus directing their modification, and a stay of the tender process. The respondents argued that framing tender conditions is within the exclusive discretion of the employer and not subject to judicial rewriting. The Court observed that even though the clarification altered PQC‑17 by deleting the term “in‑house” and widening participation, the petitioners themselves did not meet the stipulated criteria and the court lacks jurisdiction to alter tender specifications. Consequently, the Court dismissed both writ petitions and disposed of any pending interim applications.
Issues considered
- The pre‑qualification conditions in the tenders are arbitrary or discriminatory and violate constitutional guarantees.
- Whether the High Court can intervene to rewrite or delete tender conditions issued by a public authority.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of certiorari, mandamus, or a stay of the tender process.
Subjects
- public procurement
- pre‑qualification conditions
- arbitrariness
- discrimination
- constitutional law
- jurisdiction of courts
- writ of certiorari
- mandamus
- tender process
Judgment
13&40-WP.1189.2026+1.doc
JVS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1189 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 899 OF 2026
M/s. Dhingra Brothers & Anr. } Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. } Respondents
Mr. Aditya Grovar with Mr. Vinod Sangvikar and
Mr.Shubham Sonawale, Advocates for the Petitioners.
Ms. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Ms.Shruti
D. Vyas, Additional Government Pleader and Mr. S. P.
Kamble, AGP, Advocates for Respondent no.1-State.
Mr. Rakesh L. Singh i/b. M. V. Kini & Co. for
Respondent No. 2.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1356 OF 2026
Automark Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. } Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. } Respondents
Ms. Lalita Phadke with Mr. Vinod Sangvikar, Advocates
for the Petitioner.
Ms. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr. B. V.
Samant, Additional Government Pleader and Ms.
Apurva Thipsey, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Rakesh L. Singh i/b. M. V. Kini & Co. for
Respondent No. 2.
CORAM: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE: 2nd FEBRUARY 2026
1
13&40-WP.1189.2026+1.doc
P.C.:
In Writ Petition No. 1189 of 2026, the following prayers have
been made by the petitioners of which the petitioner no. 1 is a
partnership firm :-
“(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned tender conditions
dated 31.12.2025 in all 11 tenders, particularly the pre-qualification
conditions including PQC-14, PQC-15 and PQC-17, issued by the
Respondent No. 2 for “providing road safety measures by providing
various suitable materials/amenities”, as being arbitrary,
discriminatory, and violative of the Constitution of India;
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction, directing the Respondent No. 2 to reframe, modify or
delete the impugned pre-qualification and eligibility conditions in all
11 tenders so as to ensure a fair, transparent, non-discriminatory and
competition-friendly tender process, strictly in accordance with IRC,
BIS, MoRTH and CVC guidelines;
(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present writ
petition, stay the operation and implementation of the impugned
tender conditions in all 11 tenders dated 31.12.2025, extend the date
of tender submission and restrain the Respondent No. 2 from
proceeding further with the bid evaluation, opening of financial bids,
or award of contract pursuant thereto.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the pre-bid
conditions of NABL-accredited inhouse-Laboratory with scope of
accreditation for testing thermoplastic, ready mixed road marking
paint [kerb paint having ISI mark as per IS 164 (grade 1 & 2)], cold
plastic covering the test methods mentioned in MoRTH, IS164, IRC
35, AASHTO, BS 3262-1 are not at all required. The corrigendum
issued pursuant to the pre-bid meeting held on 6 th January 2026 to
the effect that the manufacturer should have NABL-accredited
Laboratory with scope of accreditation for testing thermoplastic,
kerb paint, cold plastic covering the test methods mentioned in
MoRTH, IS 164, IRC 35, AASHTO and BS 3262-1 is a moonshine
and does not make any changes in the original pre-bid conditions.
2
13&40-WP.1189.2026+1.doc
3. In Writ Petition No. 1356 of 2026 filed by Automark Industries
(India) Pvt. Ltd. and its Joint Managing Director, a similar
argument has been raised by Ms. Lalita Phadke, the learned
counsel for the petitioners. According to the petitioners in these writ
petitions, the pre-bid condition has been framed in such a manner
to favour a bidder, namely, M/s. Kataline and the entire bid process
has been vitiated for that reason.
4. A notice inviting tender was issued by the Maharashtra State
Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. on 31 st December
2025 and the bidders were permitted to download the documents
till 17:00 hours on 14th January 2026. A pre-bid meeting was
scheduled on 6th January 2026 and a common set of
deviation/clarification/decision/addendum of the department was
published on 17th January 2026.
5. Just to indicate, Writ Petition No.1189 of 2026 was filed on
12th January 2026 and Writ Petition No. 1356 of 2026 also seems to
have been filed on the same date. A pre-bid meeting is convened by
the Employer to examine the grievances raised on behalf of the
proposed bidders. This is the discretion of the Employer to accept
or decline any grievance or objection raised on behalf of the bidders.
The framing of the tender conditions is within the exclusive domain
of the Employer and any plea that the bid conditions should have
been framed in a better manner or in a different manner is
impermissible. This is also too well settled that the writ Court
cannot rewrite the conditions of the bid even if it appears to the
Court that the conditions thereunder could have been a little
different.
6. The argument made on behalf of the petitioners that the
clarification issued pursuant to the pre-bid meeting held on
3
13&40-WP.1189.2026+1.doc
6th January 2026 in fact doesn’t change the tender conditions does
not appear to be correct. The expression “inhouse” in PQC-17 has
been deleted and a wider participation is invited by incorporating
the expression “should have”. In our opinion, even if the original bid
condition of the manufacturer having NABL-accredited inhouse-
Laboratory stands in place, this Court cannot interfere in the
matter because the petitioners do not fulfill the said criteria.
7. In view of the aforesaid, Writ Petition Nos. 1189 of 2026 and
1356 of 2026 are dismissed.
8. Pending interim applications, if any, stand disposed of.
JAYANT
VISHWANATH
SALUNKE
Digitally signed by
JAYANT
VISHWANATH
SALUNKE
Date: 2026.03.05
11:24:23 +0530
[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
4
Checking your session…