The main legal point established in the judgment is that the award of work by the Municipal Corporation in favor of the respondent, after finalizing the tender process, was not an extension of the earlier contract, and the petition challenging the same was entirely misconceived and a gross abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. Rule.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

3. The petitioner seeks to assail the alleged “extension of work” for collection, disposal, transport and management of Bio Medical Waste granted by the Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation, in favour of respondent No. 4, for 5 years. The petitioner also seeks direction to the Municipal Corporation to take decision on Tender No. 1826/2018 for the period of 15 years. The prayer Clauses (A) and (B) are reproduced below :

“A. For a writ of certiorari, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for record and proceedings of extension of five years given in favour of respondent No. 4 on 24.08.2018 and after examining legality, validity and propriety thereof, extension of five years given in favour of respondent No. 4 on 24.08.2018 be quashed and set aside.

B. For a writ of Mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to act and take decision on tender No. 1826/2018 for the period of 15 years as per conditions of tender within period of 7 days or as this Hon’ble Court may deem appropriate.”

4. The aforestated prayers of the petitioner, as supported by the pleadings, are based on an assumption that the respondent No. 2/ Municipal Corporation, though had invited tender for award of work for 15 years, abandoned the same and instead issued extension order in favour of the existing contractor (respondent No. 4) for a period of 5 years. The petitioner has proceeded to file the present petition by assuming that the tender process was not finalized and that award of work in favour of respondent No. 4 was not as a result of finalization of the tender process. Even though, the counter affidavits filed by respondent No. 2/Municipal Corporation, as well as by respondent No. 4, made it clear that the assumption of the petitioner is erroneous, the counsel for the petitioner made his submissions before us, once again presuming that the tender process was cancelled and respondent No. 4 has been issued the extension order. We would deal with the factual position little latter. But we must express our anguish about the manner in which the petition is structured, as well as the way the alleged grievance of the petitioner was pressed before us, during the course of arguments.

5. Let us first examine the pleadings of the petitioner. It claims to be a partnership firm. It contends that on 11.05.2018 respondent No. 2/Municipal Corporation invited e-tender for collection, disposal, transport and management of Bio Medical Waste in Ahmednagar City. It further contends that the petitioner along with three other bidders submitted their bids. There was a specific condition in the tender notice that there should be no outstanding Government dues of any bidder. It is further contended that the technical bids of all firms were rejected and that therefore, the tender process was not proceeded further and it was decided to issue fresh tender. The petitioner has produced a copy of the e-tender notice dated 11.05.2018 at Exh. ‘A’ of the petition.

6. It is further contended by the petitioner that the General Body of the Municipal Corporation adopted a resolution on 28.03.2018 for the issuance of fresh tender process for a period of 15 years, without giving extension to the existing entity. A copy of the resolution dated 28.03.2018, produced by the petitioner has been annexed at Exh.-‘E’ to the petition. It is further contended that in pursuance of the said resolution, tender notice was issued bearing No. 1826/2018 by respondent No. 2/Municipal Corporation on 05.07.2018, with time of 21 days for the submission of bids. The petitioner submitted its bid in pursuance of the said re-tender notice. It is further averred in the petition that the petitioner was awaiting the decision of allotment of e-tender but no status was updated on e-tender portal. The peti