Bombay High Court
Creative Enterprises, Prp. Mohammad ... vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 30 September, 2022
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: Dipankar Datta, M. S. Karnik
907-WPL.29951.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 29951 OF 2022
M/s. Creative Enterprises } Petitioner
Versus
The Municipal Corporation }
of Greater Mumbai and Ors. } Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 31453 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 29951 OF 2022
(NOT ON BOARD)
M/s. Jai Mata Di Mahila }
Bachat Gat } Applicant
In the matter between
M/s. Creative Enterprises } Petitioner
Versus
The Municipal Corporation }
of Greater Mumbai and Ors. } Respondents
Mr. Niten V. Gaware for the petitioner.
Ms. Rupali Adhate for respondents 1 to 3 (MCGM).
Mr. Anand V. Upadhyay for the intervener.
Mr. Manish Padwal, Executive Engineer, C/Ward of
MCGM present.
Dr. Dinesh Mane, Sub-Engineer, Maintenance,
Department C/Ward of MCGM present.
CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ. &
M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
Page 1 of 3
J.V.Salunke,PS
907-WPL.29951.2022
P.C.:
1. Yesterday, hearing of this writ petition was adjourned at the instance of the highest bidder, on whose behalf a prayer was made by Mr. Upadhyay, learned advocate that an interim application for intervention is sought to be filed in course of the day.
2. We are informed that the interim application has been filed in the office today. Mr. Gaware, learned advocate for the petitioner has received copy of the application.
3. However, learned advocate for the applicant is not present. We propose to hear this writ petition in the second session. The interim application shall be tagged with the file. LATER:
4. In course of hearing, Ms. Adhate, learned advocate for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (hereafter "the Corporation", for short) has placed before us instructions received by her from the Assistant Commissioner, 'C' Ward conveying that the Corporation is open to cancellation of the subject tender and to re-invite bids.
5. The offer of the petitioner appears to be the highest, but the Corporation has declared his bid as invalid. The propriety of such decision is in question before us.
6. Prima facie, we have expressed our view that the Municipal Corporation may not have been justified in rejecting the bid on the ground it was rejected. The highest bidder is also before us seeking to intervene. It is not in dispute that apart from the petitioner and the intervener, there was only one other bidder whose bid is nowhere near the offers of the petitioner and the intervener. In our view, maximization of Page 2 of 3 J.V.Salunke,PS 907-WPL.29951.2022 revenue for the Corporation ought to be the Corporation's primary object.
7. Ms. Adhate, obtaining instructions from Mr. Manish Padwal, Executive Engineer, 'C' Ward of the Corporation, who is present in Court, has responded affirmatively to the suggestion of the Court that the petitioner and the intervener may be called for negotiations and in an open bid, whoever offers the highest bid, would be selected.
8. The learned advocates for the petitioner and the intervener have conveyed willingness to participate in the negotiations as well as to participate in the open bid.
9. In such view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition as well as the intervention application by granting liberty to the Corporation to opt for either of the 2 (two) alternatives, i.e., to cancel the tender and re-invite bids or to call upon the petitioner and the intervener for negotiations and thereafter ask them to participate in an open bid.
10. With such liberty, the writ petition as well as the intervention application stands disposed of.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Digitally
signed by
PRAVIN
PRAVIN DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT Date:
2022.10.01
09:44:12
+0530
Page 3 of 3
J.V.Salunke,PS