PER COURT :- Since all these petitions raise a common question, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners questioning the terms of the notice inviting tender, dated 22-1-2007 and in particular clause 3 and clause 6. In order to appreciate the submissions which are advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, it would be useful to reproduce clause No.3 and 6 of the aforesaid tender notice:

"3. Earnest Money: Unless the earnest money of Rs. 2,18,00,000/_ (Rupees Two Crore Eighteen Lakhs only) through pay order or DD of Nationalized Bank or Scheduled Bank in favour of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation is paid, the tender form will not be issued.

"6. ELIGIBILITY: The bidder/s shall have experience of minimum one year of collection of octroi of 50 per cent of amount of the estimated offer of realization, and the bidders shall have executed the tender for one full year. The certificate to this effect should have been issued by the Municipal Commissioner or the competent authority".

2. At this juncture we may point out that a similar challenge had been raised earlier before us in Writ Petition No. 177 of 2007 and by our order dated 15-10-2007 we had dismissed the aforesaid petition in limine. We are informed by Mr. B. L. Sagar Killarikar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Municipal Corporation that the Special Leave Petition filed by the unsuccessful petitioner in the said petition has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 5th February, 2007.

3. The aforesaid conditions, namely, clause 3 and clause 6 are being challenged before us on the ground that the aforesaid conditions are arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide and insertion of these conditions is actuated by bias. We have heard Mr. P. M. Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing in Writ Petition No. 624 of 2007, Mr. R. N. Dhorde, learned Counsel appearing in Writ Petition No. 607 of 2007 and Mr. Suryawanshi, learned Counsel appearing in Writ Petition No. 623 of 2007. Writ Petition No. 607 of 2007 and Writ Petition No. 624 of 2007 have been filed by the unsuccessful tendered whose tenders have not been accepted by the respondent Municipal Corporation. Writ Petition No. 623 of 2007 has been filed principally in public interest questioning the aforesaid conditions in the tender notice on the ground that by virtue of the said conditions in the tender notice, the respondent Municipal Corporation is being deprived off of the sizable amount of money.

4. The tender of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 607 of 2007 and 624 of 2007 was not considered by the respondents as the petitioners did not fulfil the eligibility criteria which is prescribed by virtue of the said conditions. By virtue of the said conditions, it is prescribed that a bidder should have experience of one year of collection of octroi of 50 per cent amount of the estimated offer of realization and the bidders ought to have executed the tender for one full year. It was also the requirement of clause 6 that a certificate to this effect should have been issued by the Municipal Commissioner or the competent authority. Obviously, according to the petitioners in the said two writ petitions, they have not executed a contract in respect of 50 per cent of the amount of the estimated offer of realization prior to the issuance of the present tender notice. A similar notice inviting tender had been issued some time in December, 2006 and the present two petitioners had submitted their tenders. For reasons which are not germane for the decision of this petition the aforesaid tender notice came to be recalled and a fresh tender notice has been issued. In response to the earlier tender notice, the petitioners, though realizing that they were not eligible, had also submitted their bids. In the present case also the petitioners though realizing that they were not eligible had submitted their bids.

5. Mr. Dhorde, learned Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document