AMOL S/O. SURESHRAO DAHAKEY v. THE VIDHARBHA IRRIGATION DEV. COOP., THR. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, YAVATMAL AND ANR.
Tender Compliance: Affidavit Sworn Before Notary Deemed Substantial Compliance; Disqualification Unsustainable When Notary Possesses Equivalent Oath-Administering Powers.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:5123-DB
Decision Date: 08-05-2025
List of Laws
The Notaries Act, 1952; Government Resolution dated 18.10.2023; Tender Conditions
- Facts: The petitioner, Amol Dahakey, submitted a bid for a tender issued by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation for repair, coloring, and furniture work. The petitioner's bid was disqualified because he submitted an affidavit sworn before a Notary on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper, instead of before the Executive/District Magistrate as stipulated in the tender conditions.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, seeking to quash the disqualification order and for directions to the Corporation to consider his financial bid.
- Issue: Did the petitioner's submission of an affidavit sworn before a Notary, instead of before the Executive/District Magistrate, constitute a material non-compliance with the tender conditions, justifying disqualification? Does the Notaries Act, 1952, grant notaries powers equivalent to those of an Executive/District Magistrate for administering oaths and taking affidavits?
- Holding: The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's submission was a substantial compliance with the tender conditions and that the disqualification was unsustainable.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 8 of the Notaries Act, 1952, empowers a Notary to administer oaths and take affidavits. The Court stated, "Once the functions of the Notary as defined under Section 8 confers the power to administer the oath or to take the affidavit from any person, the very purpose of the condition incorporated in the tender document of submission of the affidavit regarding completeness, correctness and truthfulness of the documents submitted online in envelope-1 could be said to be a substantial compliance." The Court also noted that the Government Resolution and Form 6 did not explicitly require the affidavit to be sworn before the Executive/District Magistrate, and the Tendering Authority had incorporated this condition on its own. The court found the rejection reflected a "complete non-application of mind". The court distinguished the case relied upon by the respondent, Galaxy Transport Agencies, finding it unhelpful in the present factual context.
🔒 For Members Only