JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

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

2. Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking following reliefs :

“a. For a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent no.1 to cancel the Impugned Tender and issue a fresh tender for the same subject matter with non-arbitrary, reasonable and unbiased terms and conditions insofar as the permitted technologies are concerned;

b. Pending the hearing and final disposal of this writ, an order or direction restraining Respondent no.1 from awarding the contract under Tender No. 7200042659 for rehabilitation of existing about 100 years old storm water arch drains by geopolymer lining trenchless technology in city area [“Impugned Tender’] to any bidder allied with/ who has entered into a MOU with Respondent no.2:

c. If such contract has already been awarded, for a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing any notice or other communication issued by Respondent no.1 awarding the contract under the Impugned Tender to any bidder allied with/ who has entered into a MOU with Respondent no.2.

d. for costs of the Petition and orders thereon; and

e. for such further and other reliefs, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.”

3. Petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the decision of the Respondent Municipal Corporation in choosing ‘Geopolymer Lining Trenchless Technology’ (geopolymer technology) for execution of the work of rehabilitation of 100-year-old storm water arch drains. Petitioner contends that respondent No.2 – GeoTree Solutions, an American company has developed GeoSpray-Geopolymer brand and has a monopoly in use of geopolymer technology. That the tender conditions are tailormade to favour Respondent No. 2 as the bidders procuring its GeoSpray Geopolymer technology alone would be eligible to bid in the tender process. Petitioner desires non-specification of a particular technology for execution of the work so as to provide a level playing field to all the bidders. Petitioners accordingly seeks cancellation of the impugned tender process.

4. Facts of the case as captured from the pleadings are that petitioner No.1 company is in the business of providing infrastructure and engineering services for the last 29 years and claims to have executed other high value projects. Petitioner No. 2 is its director. For the sake of brevity and convenience, Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner’. Petitioner claims to have qualified for the same tender issued in the year 2021.

5. Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai (MCGM) has undertaken work of rehabilitation of storm water arch drains which are in existence for over 100 years and issued e-tender notice on 27th December 2022. The work for which the bids are invited is ‘Rehabilitation of existing about 100 years old of storm water arch drains from Geopolymer lining trenchless technology in city area including 5 years comprehensive maintenance’ (Work). Petitioner participated in pre-bid meeting held on 3rd January 2018 and raised several queries. One of the queries was about specification only of geopolymer technology for execution of the work. MCGM issued a corrigendum dated 23rd January 2023 and extended dates in respect of impugned tender process. The last date for submission of bids was revised to 1st February 2023, opening of packet ‘A’ and packet ‘B’ scheduled on 2nd February 2023 and opening of packet ‘C’ was scheduled on 10th February 2023. MCGM responded to pre-bid queries raised by various bidders by publishing an Addendum on 24th January 2023. Objection raised by petitioner about use of only geopolymer technology met with a response ‘Tender Condition Prevails’. So far as the query with regard to ‘structural standalone Type II