1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are seeking to challenge the issuance of tender vide Tender Reference No. T-1871 and Tender i.d. No. 190688-1, and an appropriate writ, order and direction to quash and set aside the said tender.

3. On 24th January, 2017 the Respondents – Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited issued a notice inviting the tender for providing & fixing safety Crash barriers, comprising of Thrie Metal Beam Crash Barrier on median side & “W” metal beam crash barrier on shoulder side on Mumbai-Pune Expressway at various locations. The total length of the crash barrier to be installed is about 186 Km. and the cost of the work as per bill of quantity is about Rs. 67,48,40,741.1/- and the time limit before which the work is to be completed is 12 months. The last date for submission of tender was 27th February, 2017. The Petitioners did not make any bid in respect of the said tender notice. On 28th February, 2017 a technical bid was opened and the present petition has been filed on 6th March, 2017.

4. Mr. Warunjikar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that all the terms of the tender are made to suite a particular person. He invited our attention to the terms of the tender notice and submitted that the terms of the tender notice, particularly, clauses 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6(b), 2.7 and 4.0 were all made to suite/favour one particular bidder. He submitted that therefore, the terms of the tender bid were tailor-made to suite a particular person. He submitted that these terms are clearly arbitrary and created a doubt about the integrity and bona fides of the Respondents. He submitted that it is only one company which has requisite qualification prescribed under the said tender, and therefore, it was obvious that the said tender conditions were made to favour this one manufacturing company. Secondly, he submitted that in the pre-bid meeting which was held, several questions were asked by many manufacturers, raising the some doubts, which were raised by the Petitioners in this petition. He invited our attention to the questions which were asked and the answers given by the Respondents in the said pre-bid meeting. He submitted that though the Petitioners were present they did not ask any question since the questions which they raised in the petition were asked by the other persons, who were present in the pre-bid meeting.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Chavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that it was not open for the Petitioners to question the terms of the tender bid. He submitted that no details have been given by the Petitioners about themselves and their capacity to carry out the said tender work. Secondly, he submitted specific mala fides were not pleaded in the petition. Thirdly, it is submitted that there is gross delay in filing the petition. He pointed out firstly, that the Petitioners did not give his bid upto 27th February, 2017 and after the technical bid was opened on 28th February, 2017, the petition was filed on 6th March, 2017. He submitted that on this ground, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Secondly, it is pointed out that the Respondents in order to ensure the safety of people, who are plying their vehicles on the expressway, have given safety aspect a primary consideration while formulating the tender conditions. He submitted that the Apex Court in catena of judgments has laid down the principles, which should be kept in mind before interfering with the tender process. He relied on the following judgments of the Apex Court:

(i) Tata Cellular, Appellant Vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 S.C. 11

(ii) Raunaq International Ltd., Appellant Vs. I.V.R. C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document