The Bombay High Court has raised serious concerns regarding Maharashtra’s transport tender allocation process after observing that several contractors allegedly retained district-wise contracts for periods ranging from five to twelve years. Justice Siddheshwar S. Thombre issued an interim order restraining authorities from issuing work orders while allowing the bidding process to continue pending further hearings. The case, filed by I.M.S. Bhatia Transport Contractor, alleges that tender conditions unfairly favoured existing contractors and restricted market access for new participants across multiple Maharashtra districts.

Maharashtra Transport Tender Case: Bombay High Court Questions Repeated Award of Contracts to Same Firms Across Districts

Aurangabad Bench Finds Prima Facie Concerns Over Tender Conditions as Work Orders Across Maharashtra Remain Suspended Pending Further Hearing.

The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench has raised significant questions over Maharashtra’s transport tender process after observing that several transport contracts appear to have remained with the same contractors for periods ranging between five and twelve years.

In an interim order dated May 19, 2026, Justice Siddheshwar S. Thombre restrained authorities from issuing work orders under the disputed tender process while allowing the bidding procedure to continue until further consideration. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on June 22, 2026.

The observations were made while hearing Writ Petition No. 5324 of 2026 filed by M/s I.M.S. Bhatia Transport Contractor against the State of Maharashtra and other respondents. The petitioner challenged both the tender conditions and the government policy framework governing the contracts.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate R. N. Dhorde argued that the tender conditions were allegedly structured in a manner that favoured existing contractors and restricted participation by new entrants. According to the petition, several eligibility criteria effectively limited competition.

The petitioner drew the court’s attention to a chart placed on record showing district-wise transport contractors across Maharashtra. It was argued that the same entities had continued to receive contracts over many years, raising concerns regarding competition and market access.

To view the Tender Documents – Click here

Contractor Allocation Chart Examined Before Court

The contractor chart referred to during the proceedings lists Shri Ganesh Carriers in Nagpur, Perfect Roadlines in Jalna, Raj Kumar Gulati in Gondia, Raj Transport in Jalgaon, and Star Enterprises in Akola.

Rahul Roadways appears in both Palghar and Thane districts, while Krishna Roadlines is listed in Hingoli. Freight transport zones were also allocated separately through entities including J.B. Crane Association, Shirish Cargo Services Private Limited, Sainath Crane Traders Private Limited and Akash Grahak Sanstha Maryadit.

The chart further records Critical Cranes and Transportation Services Private Limited in Raigad, Priya Leasing Premises Gulati in Washim, Harishchandra Wagh in Satara, Siddhesh Roadlines in Yavatmal and M. O. Holani in Bhandara.

Additional allocations include Creative Cranes and Transportation Services Private Limited in Ratnagiri, Kishanlal Govindram and Company in Wardha, Anurag Transport in Gadchiroli, and Jalgaon Golden Transport Private Limited in D-Region freight transport operations.

Kolhapur Sahakari Mazur Va Hamal Sanstha Maryadit was allocated to Kolhapur district, while Siddhesh Roadlines appears repeatedly in Chandrapur, Buldhana, Amravati and Pune in addition to its allocation in Yavatmal.

The contractor chart also records O.K. Kotacha in Beed and Nanded, Prakash Askaran Jain in Nandurbar, Vishal Mohan Navale in Dhule, Critical Cranes and Transportation Services in Sangli, and H.P. Bhumre in Sindhudurg.

Further allocations include Sainath Crane Traders Private Limited in Aurangabad, Vishal Roadlines in Osmanabad, Gade Transport in Ahmednagar, Critical Cranes and Transportation Services in Latur, and Pritam Roadlines Operators Private Limited in Solapur.

The final entries in the chart include Critical Consumers Co-operative Society in Nashik and Parasram and Company in Parbhani. According to the petitioner, these records indicate a pattern of long-term concentration among a limited number of contractors.

Also Read: ₹46 Lakh Diesel Smuggling Seizure In Thane.

Court Records Prima Facie Concerns Over Competition

During arguments, the petitioner alleged that existing contractors had effectively monopolised the transport contract system through restrictive eligibility conditions. It was further argued that newer participants were being excluded from meaningful competition.

The State opposed interim relief through Government Pleader A.B. Girase, who relied upon earlier litigation involving similar challenges. The State also referred to previous court proceedings and Supreme Court orders connected with comparable tender disputes.

However, after examining the tender conditions and contractor allocation chart, the court observed that the same contractors appeared to have secured contracts continuously over extended periods ranging from five to twelve years.

Justice Thombre recorded that the eligibility conditions prima facie appeared to have been framed in a manner favouring existing contractors while restricting participation from other eligible bidders seeking entry into the tender process.

The court further observed that public procurement systems must remain transparent, fair, competitive and non-discriminatory. The order emphasised that every genuinely capable participant should receive a reasonable opportunity to compete for government contracts.

Importantly, the court noted that material placed on record indicated that the existing contractors had allegedly created a cartel over several years, resulting in repeated allocation of tenders to the same entities. These observations remain preliminary and subject to final adjudication.

Wider Implications for Public Procurement in Maharashtra

The interim order has implications extending beyond a single tender exercise because the challenged contracts reportedly cover transport operations across multiple districts and freight transport regions of Maharashtra.

Until the next hearing, authorities may continue the procedural aspects of the tender exercise. However, no work orders can be issued under the impugned tender process unless further directions are issued by the court.

The final outcome may influence future government procurement policies, eligibility norms, competition standards and transparency requirements in public contracting. Sprouts News will continue tracking developments as the matter proceeds before the Bombay High Court.

Readers’ Appeal

Senior investigative journalist Unmesh Gujarathi was among the first to expose issues linked to this matter. Sprouts News continues to pursue the story through follow-up investigations. If you have relevant documents, information, or evidence, contact the Sprouts News investigation team at 9322755098.

Editorial Note:

This article is based on publicly available FIR records, court case references, and reports published by multiple media organisations. The information is presented in the context of ongoing investigations and public interest reporting. Sprouts News does not make any judicial determination regarding the individuals mentioned and does not intend to defame any person or organisation. Any individual seeking clarification or wishing to provide an official response may contact the editorial team with verifiable documentation. The information is presented for journalistic and informational purposes.