Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.

Leave to amend in terms of the draft amendment tendered is granted.

Amendment be carried out during the course of the day.

2. MUT-PII is a project aided by the World Bank and is being implemented by the First Respondent. The First Respondent floated a tender for the supply of 72 trains, each of 12 coaches. The bids are to be opened this morning. The First Petitioner has not been permitted to bid in view of a settlement that was entered into by the First Petitioner with the World Bank under which the First Petitioner agreed to voluntarily desist from bidding for any World Bank aided project, across the world, for a period of two years and to make a financial commitment of US Dollars 100 million over fifteen years to support anticorruption work. This followed, what the World Bank described as the Petitioner’s, “acknowledged past misconduct in its global business and a World Bank investigation into corruption in a project in Russia involving a Siemens subsidiary”. The decision of the World Bank was communicated to the Union Ministry of Finance which, in turn, informed the First Respondent of the debarment by a letter dated 24 August 2009.

3. The position as it exists is that the First Petitioner is debarred from bidding for the project in question. Tenders have been invited under the MUT-PII project of the First Respondent, which is entirely aided and financed by the World Bank. The First Respondent is, therefore, obligated not to entertain a bid of a bidder who is precluded from bidding until 31 December 2010. These facts are adverted to in a World Bank letter dated 31 July 2009 to the Joint Secretary in the Department of Economic Affairs, Union Ministry of Finance of the Government of India.

4. The Petitioners seek to challenge a communication of the First Respondent dated 3 June 2010 stating that under the guidelines issued by the Union Ministry of Finance and the World Bank, the bid documents for this bid could not be issued to the First Petitioner. The First Respondent had sought a clarification from the World Bank by a letter dated 11 November 2010. The World Bank informed the First Respondent by its letter dated 15 November 2010 that it had nothing further to add. On 18 November 2010 the World Bank responded to a representation by the Petitioner and found no reason to make an exception from the voluntary restraint imposed under the settlement agreement. The World Bank, in its letter to the Petitioner furnished the following reasons for not making an exception:

“While we recognize the potential benefits that may accrue to the borrower and the project if Siemens were allowed to bid, in our view, it has not been established that the loss of those potential benefits would constitute `disproportionate harm’ to the borrower, as required by the settlement agreement. We would note, among other things, that there are a number of other potential bidders that have expressed interest in the tender, so that the borrower has not been deprived of a competitive process, nor is there any indication from the borrower itself that Siemens’ absence from the bidding would have a material adverse effect on project implementation. Indeed, our borrower has not communicated any concern to us in connection with this tender or Siemens’ participation, which we would view as a sine qua non for any exception. We are also conscious of the precedent that an exception would create for future bidding as the voluntary restraint period draws to a close.”

The World Bank stated that the question as to whether the deadline for the bid should be extended is a matter for the borrower to decide. The First Respondent has declined to extend the deadline for the submission of bids.

5. Counsel for the Petitioners has adverted to the averments made in paragraph 19 of the Petition and submitted that there is an element of public interest involved in extending the time for the submission of bids. Among the factors to which a reference