JUDGMENT (P.B. Majmudar, J.)

1. Rule. Learned counsel appearing for respective respondents waive service of Rule.

2. Since common point is involved in all these petitions, with the consent of the learned counsel, all these petitions were heard together and are disposed of now by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 1853 of 2008, as the main dispute is common in all these petitions.

3. The main challenge in these writ petitions is to the award of contract for display of advertisements by affixing kiosks on pole and non illuminated display board on bracket of street lighting pole belonging to the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (“BEST”) and Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay for a period of 36 months, on the ground that at the time of processing various tenders, respondent No.1 has deviated from the conditions incorporated in the tender conditions illegally, arbitrarily and in a surreptitious manner the tender of respondent No.3 has been accepted. So far as the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1997 of 2008 and Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 2111 of 2008 are concerned, they have also taken additional challenge in the petitions in connection with blacklisting the said petitioners by respondent No.1.

4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 issued an advertisement on 3rd July, 2008, inviting bids in connection with display of advertisement by affixing kiosks on pole and non illuminated display board on bracket on approximately 32,473 street lighting poles belonging to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the old city limits of Mumbai for a period of 36 months. The tender conditions and instructions to tenderers categorically stated that the expected revenue in this contract is minimum Rs. 33 crores and offer below the minimum prescribed will not be accepted. A corrigendum dated 22nd July, 2008, was issued by respondent No.1 stating that respondent No.2 is unlikely to accord sanction in respect of non-illuminated display boards and the bids may be quoted accordingly and that the Undertaking will conduct auction amongst the eligible bidders immediately after opening the tender on 24th July, 2008 at 16.00 Hrs. Pursuant to the above advertisement, as per the averments in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 2111 of 2008, 15 prospective bidders purchased the tender forms, out of which on the relevant day only four bidders responded with the payment of earnest money deposit. It is the case of the petitioners that on the relevant day i.e. 24th July, 2008, four tenderers were present which includes the present three writ petitioners and Pioneer Publicity Corporation Pvt. Ltd., the successful bidder. On that day none of the petitioners submitted their tender till 15.00 hrs. subsequent to which Mr. A.A. Mule, Chief Engineer (Works) invited discussions with regard to the suggestions made by the tenderers. At that time a grievance was made by all of them about the minimum reserve price prescribed in the tender. According to the petitioners, the said Mr. Mule informed the tenderers present that a fresh advertisement would be issued in this behalf and on such assurance, the petitioners left the place.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that after the petitioners were assured that the fresh tenders will be invited by reducing the minimum reserve price, they left the place and subsequently it was not open for the respondents to accept the tender submitted by respondent No.3 at about 5.00 p.m. on the same day for an amount of Rs. 21 crores for a period of three years. According to the petitioners, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have acted in an arbitrary manner and have abused the powers vested in them and thus the action of awarding the tender to respondent No.3 is highly arbitrary. The procedure adopted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is also arbitrary and contrary to the conditions of tender in awarding the contract to respondent No.3 below the minimum reserve price as provided in the tender conditions for t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document