The court emphasized the public interest prevailing over the financial and profit concerns of the petitioners and held that there was no cause to justify interference in the commercial terms of the tender and contract.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Patel, J.

Petitioner No.1 is a federation of 120 registered cooperative societies of unemployed persons. Petitioner No.2 is a member of Petitioner No.1.

2. We have heard Ms Karnik for the Petitioners and Mr Sakhare, Senior Advocate, for the Respondents. With their assistance, we have considered the material before us. In our view, it is not possible to grant the relief sought.

3. Our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked for these relief’s:

This Hon'ble Court may please invoke its writ jurisdiction under Art 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus;

(a) direct the Respondent Corporation to provide for 4.75% of the wages payable under the Contract advertised by Notice dated 19/12/2018 as Employer's share of Employee State Insurance, while computing the levy of 46% put to tender and make appropriate enhancements to Contract cost

(a)(i) That the circular dated 30/04/2011 be held to be illegal and bad-in-law and Quash and set aside the said Circular dated 30/04/2011 issued by Respondent no.1 Corporation in so far as the Employees Provident Fund and Employees' State Insurance Corporation contribution rates and other statutory dues which are shown contrary to the Statutory prevailing rates.

(b) direct the Respondent Corporation to provide for 13.61% of the wages payable under the Contract advertised by Notice dated 19/12/2018 as Employer's share of Provident Fund Schemes and other statutory schemes under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 while computing the levy of 46% put to tender and to make appropriate enhancements to Contract cost.

(c) direct the Respondent Corporation to increase the term of Contract for 180 days or more for effective enforcement of Provident Fund Schemes.

(d) direct the Respondent Corporation to reintroduce the terms and conditions of employing only skilled labour having experience of the said work being employed under the Contract

(e) direct the Respondent Corporation to reintroduce the condition of the Applicant Society to have a license under the Clause 5(6) two years prior to applying.

(f)

(i) direct the Respondent Corporation to remove the condition number 5(f) 1 and 2 of penalizing the Co-operative Society in case it's members went on strike, or morcha, agitation, etc.

(ii) restrain the Respondent Corporation from forcing the Petitioner's members societies into engaging labour who are not it's members.

(g) direct the Respondent Corporation to provide for appropriate administrative and Miscellaneous expenses at the rate of 10% of the total cost of Contract.

(h) direct the Respondent Corporation to value the price of the Tender Form at a fixed rate of Rs.1000/- only as applicable to Identical Fixed Rate Contracts.

(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to-

(i) stay the process of inviting and granting contract for supply of manpower to the Insecticide Department of the Respondents as initiated by impugned Notice dated 19/12/2018

4. On the face of it, in our view, such relief’s cannot possibly be granted. What the Petitioners seek is nothing but the wholesale rewriting of a tender and a contract issued by the 1st Respondent, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ("MCGM"), including the specified rates and term.

5. Petitioner No.2 was added by an amendment. A consequential paragraph 1A was added to the petition. We believe this paragraph is a telling circumstance, worth reproducing, for it encapsulates the challenge before us:

1A. Petitioner No.2 is Terna Berozgar Seva Sanstha which is a registered cooperative society of unemployed persons and are members of Petitioner No.1. That after going through the terms and conditions of the contract, Petitioner No.2 realised that the same is arbitrary and illegal as also untenable and in view of the same did not participate in the tender process and are cur