The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the legal provisions under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and the requirement for contracts to be made in accordance with the Act and rules. The court emphasized that any contract in breach of these provisions cannot be legally enforced against the petitioner Corporation.

B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is local body constituted under the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity) for Municipal Administration of Amravati town. Petitioner No. 2 is its Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Administration ). Through this writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India they challenge the order dated 14-2-2005 passed by Second Joint Civil Judge, junior Division, Amravati in regular Civil Suit No. 62/2005 allowing application at exhibit 5 and the subsequent order dated 21-4-2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Amravati in misc. Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2005 upholding the said order of trial Court. By this order, the trial Court has restrained petitioners from acting upon tender notice published by them in the newspaper on 2-2-2005 inviting tenders for engagement of security guards till 30th april, 2006 or till disposal of main suit, whichever is earlier. The respondent is an establishment engaged in business of providing security services. Said respondent filed caveat before this Court and with consent of parties petition has been heard finally on 6-5-2005 at the end of daily board.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to petitioners, respondent/original plaintiff is a contractor providing security guards to various organisations and as per contract dated 30-4-2002, he was appointed as contractor for providing security guards to petitioners for period of two years from 1-5-2002 to 30-4-2004. The contract does not contain provision for renewal or extension and it expired on 30-4- 2004. As per Rule 5 (2) of Chapter V to the Schedule of the Act, before entering into any contract for execution of work involving expenditure exceeding Rs. 3000/- it is incumbent on Corporation to invite tenders and as such, respondents with an intention to have a back door entry directly approached the Standing Committee of petitioner number one Corporation which passed a resolution on 13-2-2004 to renew its contract for period of two years i. e. up to 30-4-2006. The Municipal Commissioner decided to adhere to law and therefore he has not implemented that resolution and after expiry of period of model code of conduct which was in force on account of Parliamentary and assembly elections, sent the same for its recession under section 451 of the act to the Government and also decided to call tenders for obtaining services of security guards. Accordingly public notice of such tenders came to be published in local newspaper "dainik Janmadhyam" on 2-2-2005. The respondent filed Regular civil Suit No. 62/2005 challenging this tender notice and he also sought a temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from acting upon said notice. The petitioners state that they filed reply opposing prayer for grant of temporary injunction but the trial Court allowed said application for grant of temporary injunction. Petitioners challenged said order by filing appeal against order under Order 43, Rule l (r) of the C. P. C. but on 21-4- 2005, the Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal.

( 3 ) I have heard Advocate M. G. Bhangade for petitioners and Advocate v. M. Deshpande for respondent.

( 4 ) ADVOCATE M. G. Bhangade has contended that during pendency of these proceedings a show cause notice was also issued to respondent for engaging incompetent security guards as their ages were between 65 to 74 years and they were physically and mentally not fit for the job. In their presence antisocial elements destroyed the chamber and property of the Corporation on 22-12-2004. The security guards also gave the electric supply to residents from Corporation Electric meter. He contended that both the courts below overlooked the character and nature of personality of petitioners and also the effect of legal provisions applicable in the matter. He contends that there was no executable right with respondent to enable him to institute a suit and, passing of resolution either by Standin