Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs Nitin Shankar Deshpande on 4 August, 2022
Author: D.Y. Chandrachud
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud
CA 5036/2019
1
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.3 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No.5036/2019
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
NITIN SHANKAR DESHPANDE & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With IA No.84144/2022 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA
No.83223/2022 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No.77478/2022 -
APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No.118670/2019 –
CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION, IA No.83225/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING
AFFIDAVIT, IA No.83222/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA
No. 77472/2022 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No.83218/2022 -
INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No.118676/2019 –
INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No.80893/2022 –
INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No.89489/2019 – MODIFICATION, IA
No.89660/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES and IA No.79977/2019 - STAY APPLICATION)
WITH Diary No.11356/2020 (XVII)
(With IA No.21880/2022 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA
No.92205/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL, IA
No.92207/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT,
IA No.97529/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES and IA No.92206/2020 - STAY APPLICATION)
C.A. No. 923-924/2021 (XVII)
(With IA No.121686/2021 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA
No.39574/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT,
IA No.4277/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/
FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No.83653/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No.93118/2021 - STAY APPLICATION
IA No. 39575/2021 - STAY APPLICATION)
C.A. Nos.434-435/2022 (XVII)
(With IA No.10522/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No.10523/2022 - STAY APPLICATION)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Chetan Kumar
Date: 2022.08.06
12:43:00 IST
Reason:
CA 5036/2019
2
Date : 04-08-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
For Appellant(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Atmaram N S Nadkarni, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv.
Mrs. Tamali Wad, Adv.
Mr. Sidharth Mahajan, Adv.
Ms. Sukriti Jaggi, Adv.
Mr. Ayush P. Shah, Adv.
Keith Verghese, Adv.
Mr. Santosh Salvador Rebello, Adv.
Mr. Adiraj Bali, Adv.
Ms. Deepti Arya, Adv.
Ms. Arzoo, Adv.
M/s. J S Wad & Co.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG
Mr. Manvendra Singh, Adv.
Mr. B.L.N. Shivani, Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Ekta Sikri, Adv.
Mr. Saket Sikri, Adv.
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR
Mr. Sourabh Tandon, Adv.
Ms. Ekta Sikri, Adv.
Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, AOR
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR
Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Adv.
Ms. Aarti Krupa Kumar, Adv.
CA 5036/2019
3
Ms. Ayushma Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. Zaman Ali, Adv.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG
Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Adv.
Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv.
Mr. Divyans Rathi, Adv.
Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv.
Mr. Sarath Nambiar, Adv.
Mr. Shantnu Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Preeti Rani, Adv.
Mr. Amrish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR
Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv.
Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv.
Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG
Mr. Rajan Kumar chourasia, Adv.
Mr. Sarath nambiar, Adv.
Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Adv.
Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv.
Ms. Preeti Rani, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
Mr. Tahir Ashraf Siddiqui, AOR
Ms. Shireen Khan, Adv.
Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR
Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv.
Ms. Rajshri Dubey, Adv.
CA 5036/2019
4
Mr. H.B. Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Amit Sahi, Adv.
Mr. Amjid Maqbool, Adv.
Mr. Ashwini Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Manish Bhandari, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jaiyesh Bakhshi, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Daman Popli, Adv.
Ms. Mayuri Shukla, Adv.
Ms. Neetu Devrani, Adv.
Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, AOR
Mr. Chirag Shah, Adv.
Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Adv.
Mr. Abhinay, AOR
Ms. Unnati Vijay, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Sachedva, Adv.
Ms. Manini Roy, Adv.
Ms. Shivani Bhushan, Adv.
Mr. Pooran Chand Roy, Adv.
Mr. Santosh Paul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ashok Paranjpe, Adv.
Mr. Sriharsh N. Bundela, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Maithreya Shetty, Adv.
Ms. Kumari Rashmi Rani, Adv.
Mr. Rashi Jaiswal, Adv.
Mr. N. Ravi, Adv.
Mr. Dharam Vashisht, Adv.
Mr. Vineet Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Vedant Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Aakash Godwani, Adv.
Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai, AOR
Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Adv.
Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, Adv.
CA 5036/2019
5
Mr. T. Goyal, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Agrawal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1 The Chief Engineer of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai has filed a status report dated 15 July 2022. The status report indicates that in respect of the STPs for six locations, namely, Worli, Bandra, Dharavi, Versova, Malad and Ghatkopar, Letters of Acceptance have been issued between 27 May 2022 and 31 May 2022 after the tendering process was completed. For STP at Bhandup, the Letter of Acceptance has been issued on 13 July 2022.
2 The status report is taken on the record.
IA No 106088/2022 and IA No 106928/2022 in Civil Appeal No 5036/2019 1 The applicant was an L-4 bidder in respect of the tendering process for the award of the contract for the Bhandup STP. During the course of the tendering process the applicant has withdrawn its bid security.
2 Mr Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation with Mr A N S Nadkarni and Mr Dhruv Mehta, senior counsel submit that since the applicant has withdrawn the bid security, it has ceased to remain in the fray, and consequently cannot be heard to pursue these proceedings.
3 On the other hand, Mr C U Singh, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that while it is true that the applicant had withdrawn its bid security, nonetheless, the applicant would seek to persuade the Court that the award of the contract was contrary to the bid conditions.
CA 5036/2019 64 The applicant was admittedly an L-4 bidder. Having withdrawn its bid security, it has clearly evinced an intent not to remain in the fray of competing bidders for the project. Consequently, a challenge at the behest of the applicant to the award of the contract for the Bhandup STP cannot be entertained.
5 The Interlocutory Applications are accordingly dismissed only on that ground.
IA No 77472/2022 & IA No 77478/2022 in Civil Appeal No 5036/2019 1 The name and credentials of the applicant as they appear from the cause title are reproduced below:
“Tushar Mahadeo Kadam Chairman – Legal, Human Rights, RTI Department, Mumbai Regional Congress Committee.”
2 The applicant seeks the following reliefs:
“a) … an order directing Respondents herein to re-
constitute the Peer Review Committee with neutral members from Government bodies having impeccable antecedents and necessary qualification;
b) … an order directing reconstituted Peer Review Committee to recommend a fresh and fair estimation of Project cost of entire STP Project while maintaining utmost transparency; and
c) …an order directing stay of present process of award of Tenders till the time fresh reconstitution of Peer Review CA 5036/2019 7 Committee is carried out and revised estimates of Project cost of STP Project is fairly assessed and recommend…”
3 The applicant seeks to interdict the tendering process which has been carried out by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for the award of contracts for the STPs at various locations. In a matter of this nature, where a project involving a significant element of public interest is being implemented by a municipal corporation, it is necessary that a person who seeks to challenge the award of contracts must be subject to an order of anticipatory costs. Unless such an order is passed, there is a grave danger that the process of the court can be abused to stall public projects resulting in costs overruns and delays. Beyond setting out the description extracted earlier, the applicant has not indicated his credentials.
4 We accordingly direct that the applicant shall deposit an amount of Rs 5 crores towards anticipatory costs within a period of four weeks in the Registry of this Court, failing which the application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.
5 On deposit, the Court would be inclined to call for responses from the Municipal Corporation to the contents of the Interlocutory Application. In the event the Court comes to the conclusion that the recourse to the jurisdiction of this Court was genuine and bona fide, the costs which have been directed to be deposited would be returned. On the other hand, if the Court does not find that to be the case, an order for the award of costs shall follow.
6 List the Interlocutory Applications on 1 September 2022.
IA No 84144/2022 in Civil Appeal No 5036 of 2019 CA 5036/2019 8 1 Mr Maninder Singh, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that (i) clause 4.3 of the tender document provides for “specific experience” and stipulates that the eligible projects must have been completed by prospective bidders on or after 1 January 2008; (ii) Note 9 indicates that the plants referred to in note 14 should be newly constructed plants and that refurbished, augmented or upgraded plants shall not be constructed; and (iii) Note 14 indicates that the bidder shall propose proven technology which is in operation as on the date of submission of tender anywhere in the world.
2 On the basis of the above premises, it has been urged that the experience which was placed in the bid document by the L-1 bidder did not meet the above specifications.
3 In view of the above submission, both Mr Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation and Mr Neeraj Kishan Kaul, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the successful bidder seek time to file their responses to the above submissions and to the contents of the Interlocutory Application.
4 Mr Maninder Singh, senior counsel for the applicant seeks to implead M/s DRN Infrastructure Pvt Ltd as a party in the interlocutory application.
5 Mr Neeraj Kishan Kaul appears on behalf of the newly added party instructed by Mr Sanyat Lodha, Advocate-on-Record.
6 List the Interlocutory Application on 23 August 2022.
Civil Appeal No 5036/2019 and Civil Appeal Diary No 11356/2022 CA 5036/2019 9 1 List the Civil Appeals on 17 August 2022.
Civil Appeal Nos 923-924/2021 and Civil Appeal Nos 434-435/2022 1 List the Civil Appeals on 25 August 2022.
(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master