M/S Swastik Offset Printers Through Proprietor vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Swastik Offset Printers, filed a writ petition challenging a communication dated December 18, 2025, from the Tender Inviting Authority (Respondent No. 2, the Collector) rejecting its bid. The petitioner, registered under GST and MSME, submitted an e-tender for writing material and stationery for 2024-2025. The technical bid was rejected because a certificate from an Auditor for the last three years, showing an average financial transaction or turnover of at least 60% of the proposed tender amount, was allegedly not uploaded. The petitioner claimed its turnover was 59.96% and argued it should have been considered by rounding off, and that the rejection was a rigid approach. The State contended that the petitioner was aware of the terms and was rightly rejected for not fulfilling the criteria.
Held
The Court held that it has a limited scope to interfere in tender evaluation processes. The tender document clearly stipulated a condition that the last three years' average financial transactions or turnover should be a minimum of 60% of the proposed tender amount, certified by a Chartered Accountant with a UDIN number. The petitioner itself admitted that its turnover was 59.96%. Since the petitioner did not fulfill the explicit criteria laid down in the tender document, the rejection of its bid was deemed appropriate and not a rigid approach by the Collector. The Court found no merit in the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid was arbitrary and rigid, considering the petitioner's average financial turnover was 59.96%, which is marginally below the stipulated 60% requirement? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the rejection was based on a rigid approach and that its bid ought to have been considered by rounding off the turnover percentage from 59.96% to 60%. The petitioner relied on the principle that tender evaluations should not be overly technical when the deviation is minor. Revenue's Argument: The respondent-State argued that the petitioner was aware of all the terms and conditions of the tender and, having failed to meet the specified criteria, its bid was rightly rejected. The State emphasized that the tender document had a specific condition requiring a minimum 60% average financial turnover certified by a Chartered Accountant.
Sections Cited
Goods and Services Tax (2017) Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
40-WP-29-26.odt {1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 40 WRIT PETITION NO. 29 OF 2026 M/s Swastik Offset Printers Through Proprietor VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others ...... Mr. Mahesh V. Ghatge, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. S.B. Narwade, AGP for Respondents-State ...... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 05 JANUARY, 2026 PER COURT :-
The present petition has been filed challenging the communication dated 18.12.2025 issued by the Tender Inviting Authority, thereby rejecting the bid of the petitioner.
The petitioner is a sole proprietor duly registered under the Goods and Services Tax (2017) Act, and also registered under MSME with Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. The respondent- Collector has invited e-tender for supply of writing material and other stationery for the year 2024-2025 through Government E-procurement portal. The petitioner has submitted his bid online within the prescribed time and all the necessary documents. However, his technical bid came to be rejected on the ground that certificate of the Auditor for the last three years was not uploaded along with bid as reflected in the 2026:BHC-AUG:59-DB
40-WP-29-26.odt {2} technical evaluation sheet communicated subsequently by e-mail. The petitioner had pointed out that the certificate is uploaded and informed that his turnover is not 60%. He tired to explain that it is 59.96%. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the said bid ought to have been considered by rounding it off, and that respondent No. 2- Collector ought not to have rejected the same by adopting a rigid approach.
Learned AGP waives service of notice for the respondents and submits that the petitioner was having knowledge of each and every term and since he is not fulfilling the said criteria, his bid has been rightly rejected.
The first and foremost fact i.e. required to be mentioned her that this Court has limited scope to consider the matter wherein the tenders are evaluated. When the tender document was floated, there was a specific condition at Sr. No.17 stating that last three years average financial transactions or turnover should be minimum 60% of the proposed tender amount and it should e certified by Chartered Accountant with UDIN number. Now, taking into consideration the evaluation sheet of the Committee who evaluated the tender documents of all the bidders, it appears that two bidders have been declared ineligible.
40-WP-29-26.odt {3}
As regards the present petitioner is concerned, the aforesaid is the fact, and according to the petitioner itself, the said percentage comes to 59. 96. If the petitioner does not fulfill the said criteria, the rejection is appropriate. It cannot be said to be a rigid approach of the Collector to reject the same. We do not find any merit in the present petition. Hence, the writ petition stands rejected. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE S P Rane
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.