JUDGMENT (Per Swatanter Kumar, C.J.):

Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 17th July 2007 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the contract for recovery of entrance fee from vehicle drivers, who enter from three check nakas of Goregaon, Powai and Marol respectively in Aarey Milk Colony has been extended for a period of 3 years with effect from 17th February 2005 by increasing the contract amount by 5% as also inviting fresh tenders for the said contract.

2. The petitioner, who claims to be a reputed contractor and who has undertaken various contracts for management and maintenance, submitted a tender in response to the notice dated 30th December 2001 inviting tenders issued by the State Government. The tender related to the management of three toll naka points within the Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (East) Mumbai. In response to the said notice, the tender of the petitioner was accepted and he was awarded contract work for a period of three years from 17th February 2002 to 16th February 2005. Three years period expired on 17th February 2005. Thereafter an application was moved by the petitioner requesting respondent No.2 to grant extension of the contract for a period of three years. This request of the petitioner was accepted by respondent No.2, vide order dated 24th April 2004. It is averred in the petition that earlier a writ petition being Writ Petition No.687 of 2002 was filed which was withdrawn. The said order dated 24th April 2002 granting three years extension to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions but by merely increase in rate by 5%, was challenged by one Subhash Acharya in Writ Petition No. 580 of 2007. In that petition grant of extension was challenged on various grounds including that the extension was entirely arbitrary, malafide and was disadvantageous to the State exchequer. The said writ petition was allowed by this court vide judgment and order dated 16th August 2007, wherein the order dated 23rd August 2004 was set aside and the Government was directed to issue fresh tenders. 1. During the pendency of Writ Petition No. 580 of 2007, an application for intervention, being Notice of Motion No. 328 of of 2007 was filed by other applicants claiming that the extension granted to the petitioner therein was illegal, unsustainable and was in colourable exercise of powers. They also averred that large number of contracts were being similarly extended in the discretion of the authorities in violation of the rules of business and the basic rule of law, and that all should be given an opportunity to participate in the contracts, which the State wishes to enter into with individuals. This application was also taken into consideration while delivering the judgment dated 16th August 2007.

4.During the pendency of the said Writ Petition No. 580 of 2007, the Minister of his own volition issued a show cause notice to the petitioner therein and after hearing the petitioner therein an order dated 11th July 2007 was passed partly justifying his order dated 23rd August 2004 and at the same time directed issuance of fresh tenders and also fixed minimum bid at Rs.1,58,987/-. The order dated 11th July 2007 also stated that the decision for extension of contract dated 23rd August 2004 was for valid reasons and consideration. The said order did terminate the contract with retrospective effect but directed that till new contracting party is selected by the Government by calling for fresh tenders, petitioner therein would continue to have the benefit of the order of extension. It is this order dated 11th July 2007 which has been challenged by the petitioner herein in the present case. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order dated 11th July 2007 is contrary to the terms on which he was granted extension and in fact takes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document