Tender process ruled unfair due to lack of transparency, favoritism, and deviation from constitutional requirements.

The court found that the tender process lacked transparency and fairness, deviating from constitutional requirements. The Public Works Department's favoritism towards the 3rd respondent, who did not meet experience criteria, led to the quashing of the work order. The court emphasized strict adherence to tender terms, annulling the award and allowing a two-week stay for potential appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. Non-compliance with the guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission.
3. Alleged favoritism and deviation from tender terms by the Public Works Department (PWD).
4. Eligibility and experience criteria for bidders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner argued that the tender process violated Article 14, which mandates equality before the law. The petitioner contended that the password protection given to the 3rd respondent's bid violated the transparency required under Article 14. The court, however, did not find merit in this argument, accepting the State's explanation that all e-tenders were accessible to competitors.

2. Non-compliance with the guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission:
The petitioner claimed that the tender process flouted the Central Vigilance Commission guidelines, which require transparency and fairness in public procurement. The court examined the tender documents and found that the password protection did not violate these guidelines. Therefore, this issue was not pursued further.

3. Alleged favoritism and deviation from tender terms by the Public Works Department (PWD):
The petitioner alleged that the PWD relaxed the tender terms to favor the 3rd respondent. The court scrutinized the tender documents and found discrepancies. The original tender required experience in installing and maintaining digital audio conference systems with specific features. The revised tender notice omitted these details, which the court found problematic. The court noted that the Executive Engineer's affidavit denied the necessity of three years of experience, contradicting the tender's explicit requirements. The court concluded that the PWD's actions compromised the tender's integrity, favoring the 3rd respondent without justifiable reasons.

4. Eligibility and experience criteria for bidders:
The petitioner argued that the 3rd respondent did not meet the eligibility criteria, particularly the requirement of having installed and maintained similar systems worth at least Rs. 111 lakhs in prestigious government buildings over the last three years. The court found that the 3rd respondent's experience was limited to less complex installations, such as those in the cabins of the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister, which did not equate to the sophisticated systems required in the legislative assembly halls. The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the tender terms, given the critical nature of the work.

Conclusion:
The court found that the tender process did not adhere to the constitutional mandate of fairness and transparency. The PWD's deviation from the tender terms and the lack of requisite experience of the 3rd respondent warranted judicial intervention. Consequently, the court quashed the work order issued to the 3rd respondent.

Order:
The writ petition was allowed, and the work order in favor of the 3rd respondent was quashed. The court stayed its order for two weeks to allow the 3rd respondent to appeal, considering the upcoming budget session of the Maharashtra State Assembly.

---