19 June 2025 Civil Writ Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Bombay High Court has set aside the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation's (PCMC) decision to reject a petitioner's bid for a tender to provide security guard helpers. The Court ruled that the petitioner, M/s. National Security Services, does fulfill the eligibility criteria under Clause 3(m)(c) of the tender document, which requires prior experience of providing at least 955 security helpers in a single work or consolidated work in a financial year.

The case revolved around two main grievances of the petitioner:

• Opportunity granted to other bidders: The petitioner initially challenged the PCMC's decision to allow other bidders (Respondent Nos. 3 to 6) to submit missing documents. However, the Court dismissed this grievance, stating that it was already addressed in a previous writ petition (Writ Petition No. 2529 of 2025) and was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. The Court also noted that a Government Resolution dated September 17, 2019, mandates providing such opportunities.
• Rejection of Petitioner's bid due to ineligibility: The core of the dispute was the PCMC's assertion that the petitioner lacked the required experience under Clause 3(m)(c). The petitioner contended that they had provided 1413 security guard helpers through 12 work orders issued by the PCMC itself during the financial year 2020-21. The PCMC, in its impugned order, refused to consolidate these work orders, insisting on a "singular work" experience.

The High Court meticulously examined the tender conditions, particularly the stipulation below Clause 3(m), which permits the consolidation of certificates issued by different organizations for the purpose of fulfilling eligibility criteria within a single financial year. The Court found no valid reason why the 12 work orders, all from the same financial year and issued by the same Municipal Corporation, could not be consolidated.

The Court criticized the PCMC's affidavit for failing to address the vital aspect of consolidation and for raising baseless contentions of constructive res judicata despite earlier court orders allowing the petitioner to present additional documents.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that by consolidating the 12 work orders, the petitioner had demonstrably provided 1413 helpers, exceeding the required 955. Consequently, the Court declared the petitioner eligible and directed the PCMC to consider the financial bid of the petitioner along with other eligible bidders.