Locus standi and principles of delay and latches are crucial factors in determining the admissibility of a petition.

JUDGEMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. Heard. Rule. It is made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. A.S. Shinde, learned advocate Mr. J.R. Shah, learned advocate Mr. Subodh Shah and learned advocate Mr. Anandsingh Bayas waive service. At their joint request, the matter is heard finally at the admission stage.

2. The present petition is filed by four petitioners challenging the decision of the respondent - Corporation in awarding contract for a period of 30 years as well as the agreement dated 24.11.2017 executed by it in favour of respondent nos.4 and 5. Further prayer is made seeking writ of mandamus to direct the respondent - Municipal Corporation to invite e-tender for future period for the work of installation of hoardings, uni-poles and collection of taxes in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 26.11.2014.

3. The respondent - Municipal Corporation had invited proposals for expression of interest vide advertisement dated 19.11.2016 for the following five works:

(I) Submission of proposal for hoardings at lands/buildings owned by the Municipal Corporation.

(II) Installation of direction indicator gantries in the newly developed areas.

(III) Installation of bus stops for bus services of Municipal Corporation.

(IV) Development of spaces below flyovers and development of Islands.

(V) Conducting survey in respect of advertisements on commercial hoardings, boards and kiosks except display boards on shops and recovery of tax thereon.

4. It is an admitted position that petitioner no.1 participated in the process of invitation of proposals for expression of interest in respect of various works. It appears that the proposals of petitioner no.1 were rejected on technical grounds. Petitioner no.1 did not challenge rejection of his proposals and acquiesced in such rejection.

5. The respondent - Municipal Corporation received proposals from eligible bidders in respect of the works at serial nos. (I) and (V). The general body of the Municipal Corporation adopted resolution no.1291 in its meeting held on 19.09.2017 and resolved to award the work at Sr. No.(I) to respondent no.4 and the work at serial no.(V) to respondent no.5. Accordingly, approval was granted by the general body for award of work for 30 years on the basis of the demands of respondent nos.4 and 5. The Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation thereafter adopted resolution no.239 in its meeting held on 22.12.2017 and granted financial approval for award of respective works to respondent nos.4 and 5.

6. Accordingly, agreements came to be executed by respondent - Municipal Corporation in favour of respondent nos.4 and 5 on 24.12.2017 regarding the respective works.

7. The present petition came to be filed by the petitioners on 05.07.2019 challenging the aforesaid decision of the Municipal Corporation in awarding the work for 30 years as well as the agreements executed with respondent nos.4 and 5 on 24.11.2017. The main objections of the petitioners are that no tenders were invited before awarding the work, that the work could not have been awarded for a long period of 30 years, that the contracts have not been signed by the Municipal Commissioner as required under Section 73 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and, that the Municipal Corporation has incurred losses by award of works to respondent nos.4 and 5.

8. Before adverting to the merits of the matter, we put across to Mr. R.F. Totala, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners as to how the petitioners have locus standi to file the petition and whether this Court would be justified in interfering in the matter on account of delay and latches on the part of the petitioners. Needless to say that these two objections are specifically taken not only by respondent - Municipal Corporation, but also by respondent nos.4 and 5.

9. With regard to the issue of locus standi, Shri. Totala submitted that the petitioners are tax payers and are interested in ensuring that the Municipal Corporation does not award