PER : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.

1. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether a prospective bidder can seek enforcement of suggestions/amendments given by him to the authority issuing the bid.

2. The aforesaid issue arises in the backdrop of E-Tender Notice dated 4th January, 2014 issued by Respondent No.1 Thane Municipal Corporation. By aforesaid E-Tender notice, the Corporation intended to invite bids for supply, operation and maintenance of vehicle mounted suction-cum-Jetting Machine with Recycling facility for cleaning / desilting of sewer lines in Thane City area. The petitioner No.1 claims to be a leading manufacturer of sewer lines maintenance equipments. According to the Petitioners, after perusing the E tender documents, they found certain technical specifications and qualification criteria to be highly restrictive. Hence, on 20th January, 2014 the Petitioners gave some suggestions/amendments to the Corporation which according to them were not suitable considering the nature of work proposed to be done. A Pre-Bid Meeting was held on 21st January, 2014 that was attended by the Petitioners as well as other prospective bidders. After due deliberations the Corporation considered the suggestions/amendments as suggested and thereafter on 1st February,2014 uploaded the remarks of the concerned department to the suggestions/amendments as made. In so far as the suggestions given by the Petitioner No.1 are concerned, out of three suggestions given, one was accepted and two were not accepted. Being aggrieved by the non acceptance of these two suggestions given by it the petitioners have preferred present writ petition praying that the suggestions as given by it be directed to be accepted and a fresh tender be published in that regard.

3. Considering the nature of the controversy, we have heard Shri Pradeep Havnur, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr Apte, Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and are deciding the present writ petition finally.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners Shri Havnur has submitted that the suggestions/amendments as proposed by it were with a view to have a fair competition amongst the bidders and said suggestions were in the interest of the Corporation itself. It was submitted that the fact that one of the suggestions given by the Petitioners was accepted itself showed that the Corporation had realized the effectiveness of said suggestions. However, with a view to restrict the bidders, the other suggestions made by the Petitioners were not accepted. It was submitted that the experience of a manufacturer who had supplied the machines in question to private companies working for Government bodies ought to have been recognised. According to the petitioners, they had supplied similar machines to the Delhi Jal Board and hence they had the necessary experience in that regard. The learned Counsel therefore submitted that the Corporation by not accepting all the suggestions / amendments as proposed by the Petitioners had acted in an irrational mannner. It was, therefore, prayed that a fresh tender be directed to be published after taking into consideration all the suggstions / amendments as proposed by the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, Shri R.S. Apte, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents with Shri N.R.Bubna submitted that the Petitioners had no right whatsoever to insist for acceptance of the suggestions / amendments as made by them. It was submitted that after the pre-bid meeting held on 21st January, 2014, the Respondent No.1- Corporation had considered the various queries / suggestions received from the four prospective bidders. While some suggestions were accepted, others that were not found feasible were not accepted. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the allegation that the Corporation did not intend to have a large number of bidders was without any basis. There was no factual foundation in the pl