ORDER (Per Chief Justice):

1. The petitioner claims to be a social activist. In this petition filed as Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to respondent nos.1 to 4 to follow the procedure laid down by the Central Vigilance Commission (Public Procurement Manual) while awarding tenders/contracts in respect of collection and disposal of solid waste in the cities of Thane, Panvel and Navi Mumbai. The petitioner, in addition, seeks a direction that while awarding tenders in future for the purposes of collection and disposal of solid waste in the State, the guidelines for award of contract should be framed.

2. Respondent nos.2 to 4 are Municipal Corporations of Thane, Panvel and Navi Mumbai respectively and are established under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 have issued various tenders for City Cleaning Services. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice inviting tender, several persons submitted their bids. Respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 have been held eligible to participate in the tender and all the three Municipal Corporations have granted the tender to respondent no.7.

3. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the Public Interest Litigation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conditions incorporated in the notice inviting tender that competent authority has right to reject bid without assigning any reason is arbitrary and unfair. It is further submitted that a cartel has been formed by respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 and, therefore, a monopoly has been created by them. It is, therefore, necessary to form uniform guidelines for grant of contract in Thane, Panvel and Navi Mumbai.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.

6. In BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, ((2002) 2 SCC 333), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a public interest litigation must satisfy the following parameters:

i. Where the persons belong to the disadvantaged sections of society (women, children, bonded labour, unorganised labour etc.).

ii. Where judicial law making is necessary to avoid exploitation (inter-country adoption, the education of the children of the prostitutes). iii. Where the concerns underlying a petition are not individualist but are shared widely by a large number of people (bonded labour, under-trial prisoners, prison inmates).

iv. Where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of the sanctity of democratic institutions (independence of the judiciary, existence of grievances redressal forums).

v. Where administrative decisions related to development are harmful to the environment and jeopardize people’s right to natural resources such as air or water.

7. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, ((2004) 3 SCC 349), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there has to be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant or poke ones nose into for a probe.

8. The aforesaid propositions have been once again reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, ((2010) 3 SCC 402) and it was held that the Courts should prima facie be satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition and the same involves larger public interest. The Court is also under an obligation to satisfy itself about the credentials of the person, who invokes the writ jurisdiction of this Court by way of a PIL. In paragraph 181 of the aforesaid decision, the following directions have been issued:

(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate