D.D.SINHA, J. : Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3701/2007, Shri Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5100/2007, Shri Gordey, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5855/2007, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent no.1 State, Shri Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India with Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition Nos. 3701/2007 and 5855/2007 and respondent nos. 2 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 5100/2007, and Shri Arun Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3701/2007, states that petitioners do not want to press prayer clauses (2) and (3) in the writ petition. In view of the said statement of learned Counsel Shri Kilor, Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the interveners, states that interveners do not want to press the intervention application.

2) Shri Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, on 6/12/2007, informed this Court that pursuant to the tender notice issued by the respondent no.2, tenders were invited and respondent M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. was the highest bidder, hence, its tender was accepted and agreement dated 26.10.2007 has already been executed between respondent no.2 and respondent M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Therefore, the petitioners sought permission to challenge validity of the said agreement by amending the petitions. The request for amendment was opposed by Shri Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India on the ground that proposed amendment changes the nature of basic cause of action. However, this Court vide order dated 19.12.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 3701/2007 rejected the stand of Shri Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India by observing that in the petitions, the petitioners have challenged very issuance of tender notice by the respondent no.2 in the month of July 2007 on the ground that whole process is not in the public interest, same is also not consistent with the object of The Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, hereafter referred to as “the Act of 2003”) and the petitioners in prayer clause (1) of the petition, are seeking quashing of tender notice. Since respondent no.2 during pendency of the petition has accepted tender of respondent M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. and executed agreement with the said Company, this Court permitted the petitioners to raise challenge to the said agreement by holding that proposed amendment, if permitted, would not change the basic cause of action involved in the main petition. The petitioners in all these petitions have, therefore, raised common grievance by way of the amendment that agreement dated 26.10.2007 entered into between respondent no.2 and respondent M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. is void being against the public interest and policy. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed for setting aside the tender notice dated 12.7.2007 issued by the respondent no.2 as well as decision to allot distribution franchisee in three Divisions, namely, Civil Lines, Mahal and Gandhibagh, Nagpur Urban Circle to respondent M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. The petitioners are also praying for a direction to respondent nos.1 and 2 not to appoint any franchisee for distribution of electric supply in the city of Nagpur and to take necessary steps so as to reduce transmission and distribution losses in the Nagpur Urban Circle.

3) Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.3701/2007, submitted that petitioner no.1 is a voluntary Organization of vigilant citizens espousing the cause of public interest. The petitioner no.1 is a registered body of public spirited citizens having faith in rule of law and renders social and legal services by espousing the cause of public n