D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

( 1 ) THE Chief Engineer (Roads and Development) of the Municipal Corporation floated tenders in June, 2000 for the supply of road metal to the City Western Suburbs and Eastern Suburbs for a period of 12 months upto 9th September, 2001. The petitioner submitted a tender for the supply of crushed metal and machine crushed metal required for building roads for Wards a to E and for the supply of crushed metal with dust for Wards F and G of the municipal Corporation. The tender quotation was submitted by the petitioner in the month of June, 2000. On 15th September, 2000, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Deputy Chief Engineer (Roads) recording that the quarry owner had declined to supply two items viz. , Item No. 4 being 25 mm crushed metal and item No. 5 being 12. 5 mm crushed metal and that, therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to stand by the offer in respect of those two items which were quoted for F and G Wards. On 19th September, 2000, the Municipal Corporation issued a communication of the Deputy Chief Engineer stating that the Additional municipal Commissioner had granted his sanction on 7th September, 2000 for the supply of items for Wards A to E. Another communication was issued on 19th September, 2000 in respect of the supply of items for F and G Wards at the total cost not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs. The petitioner responded on 21st september, 2000 recording that on 12th September, 2000, the Corporation had already been informed that the petitioner would not be in a position to effect supplies of two items viz. , Item Nos. 4 and 5 and that accordingly, the offer had been withdrawn before the approval of the Standing Committee. The approval of the Standing Committee, it may be noted, was required under section 69 (c) of the mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 in respect of supplies of a value in excess of Rs. 15 lakhs. There followed another representation by the petitioner on 25th September, 2000. On 6th October, 2000, the petitioner submitted a representation contending that his bid for A to B Wards should be considered and that in respect of the bid for F and G Wards where the petitioner had withdrawn its offer, at the highest, the deposit submitted by the petitioner could be forfeited in accordance with tender conditions. The petitioner, however, submitted that the name of the firm should not be deleted from the approved list of suppliers, under the tender conditions. On 9th October, 2000, the petitioner stated in another representation that it was learnt that the Municipal Corporation was proposing to cancel the entire supply as against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that this would only result in the contract being awarded to some other party at a higher rate.

( 2 ) ON 4th September, 2001 the Municipal Corporation issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. The notice recited that in response to the tenders that were floated by the Corporation, the petitioner submitted bids for A to E Wards and, in another group, for F and G Wards including the Asphalt Plant at Worli and Dharavi. The rates quoted by the petitioner were found to be the lowest for items 1, 2, 3 and 7 for A to E Wards and Items 4, 5 and 6 for F and G Wards. Hence, the bids submitted by the petitioner were recommenced by the Tender committee. The notice recited that an interim work order to supply material upto rs. 20 lakhs was issued to the petitioner on 19th September, 2000. However, prior thereto on 15th September, 2000, the petitioner had declined to supply two items. The Municipal Corporation in its notice stated that under tender condition 5, the deposit of Rs. 30,000/- was liable to be forfeited if a tenderer withdrew his offer before the decision or the Standing Committee was known or, in the event of the tender being accepted, the tenderer failed to execute articles of agreement. The petitioner was informed that as a result of the withdrawal by the petitioner, the Corporation has to