JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugn the action of the 1st respondent in treating the tenders submitted by the petitioners as "Non-Responsive" and eliminating them from consideration.

2.The first respondent is a Municipal Corporation set up under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The second respondent is the Commissioner of the said Corporation exercising statutory powers under the Act. The third respondent is an officer of the first respondent Corporation. The petitioners are respectively a partnership firm and a sole proprietory concern doing the business as Municipal Contractors.

3.Sometime in April 1998, the 1st respondent invited sealed tenders from contractors to carry out certain petty works. The tenderers were required to quote the percentage below the scheduled rates at which they offered to carry out the work. The offer had to be in the form of a rebate expressed as a percentage of the scheduled rate. e.g., if the scheduled rate was Rs. 100/- , the tenderer could offer to carry out the work at 25% rebate, meaning that he would car

Click Here to Read the rest of this document