Full Judgment Text
2007:BHC-OS:6920-DB
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 820 OF 2007
M/s. Rockwell (INDIA), through )
Proprietor Mr. Bharat A. Bhansali, )
rd
having address at Flat No. 12, 3 floor, )
83 Banganga Road, Saraswat Building, )
Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400 006 )...Petitioner
versus
1. The Transport Manager, )
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation Transport, )
Turbhe Depot, Navi Mumbai-400 705 )
2. The Municipal Commissioner, )
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, )
Belapur Bhavan, Plot No.3, Sector 11, Belapur, )
Navi Mumbai. )
3. M/s. Ronak Advertising, through Proprietor )
Mr. Amardeep Singh, A-208, Vashi Plaza, )
Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 )..Respondents
Mr. K.H. Giri for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandesh Deshpande for respondent No.1.
Mr. J.G. Reddy for respondent No.2.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
Judgment reserved on: June 11, 2007
Judgment delivered on: June 21, 2007
JUDGMENT (Per Swatanter Kumar, C.J.):
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:50 :::
-2-
The Transport Manager, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
Transport issued a public advertisement in the local newspaper
nd
“Lokmat” on 22 July, 2006. In the advertisement it was stated that the
tender forms for construction of 183 bus shelters would be available
th th
during the period 24 July, 2006 to 14 August, 2006. The tenders
th
were required to be submitted by 15.00 Hrs. on 16 August, 2006, and
they were to be opened in the presence of the parties on the same day
at 16.00 Hrs. The petitioner, who claims to be one of the bidders, has
th
averred in the petition that on 16 August, 2006, no officer of
respondent No.1 was available at the Office of first respondent for
opening the tenders and no further notice was put on the notice board
with regard to deferment of date for opening of the tenders. The
petitioner, through his advocate, issued a notice to the first respondent
nd
on 2 February, 2007, seeking information about the date on which
the tenders would be opened. This letter was replied to by the first
th
respondent on 6 February, 2007. From the reply it became evident
st
that the tenders had been opened on 31 October, 2006, and the
tender was awarded to respondent No.3. The petitioner was aggrieved
by the said action of the first respondent as, according to the petitioner,
the tenders were opened behind the back of the petitioner and
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:50 :::
-3-
awarding of tender to respondent No.3 was in a most arbitrary and
discriminatory manner.
2. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the first respondent
wherein it was stated that in accordance with condition No. 9.1 of the
terms and conditions of the tender, the date of opening of tender would
be displayed on the notice board and accordingly a notice was
th
published on the notice board of the main gate on 26 October, 2006.
However, the said date was deferred and all the tenderers were
st
informed telephonically that the tenders would be opened on 31
October, 2006. The tenders were actually opened on that day and the
tender was awarded to the highest bidder i.e. respondent No.3. A
comparative chart of the highest bidder has been placed on record and
it is stated that out of the awarded work, respondent No.3 has already
completed major part of the work and as such the writ petition is liable
to be dismissed.
3. The petitioner is a proprietary concern and is carrying on the
business of advertising. The tender was floated by respondent No.1 for
construction of 183 bus shelters as per the specification and drawing
provided by the first respondent. The dates as aforenoticed are not in
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:50 :::
-4-
th
dispute. The tenders were to be opened on 16 August, 2006, but the
same were not opened and, according to the first respondent, due
intimation was given by publishing a notice on the notice board that
th
the tenders would be opened on 26 October, 2006. These tenders
st
were then opened on 31 October, 2006, after telephonically informing
all the persons. The official respondents as well as the private
respondent have admitted that out of the five tenderers, three
tenderers were present. It is also not in dispute that out of the total 183
bus shelters for which the tender was invited, 100 bus shelters have
already been completed by the private respondent. Specific objection
has been taken against the maintainability of the petition on the ground
that the petition suffers from the plea of delay and laches as the
th nd
petitioner made no effort right from 16 August, 2006 to 2 February,
2007, to find out the fate of his tender and in fact the petitioner took no
legal steps to claim any relief of his grievance, if any. The tender was
awarded to respondent No.3. Condition No.9.1 of the terms and
conditions of the tender reads as under:-
“9.1 If possible the tenders received will be opened on
16.08.2006 at 16.00 hrs. at the office of Transport Manager
in the presence of desirous bidder or in the presence of
their representative. Otherwise date of tender opening will
be displayed on notice board.”
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:50 :::
-5-
4. A bare reading of the above condition shows that the said
condition itself had an element of relaxation and tenders could be
opened on any subsequent date by placing the information in that
behalf on the Notice Board which, according to the respondents, was
duly done. We have no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed by the
first and third respondents and, in fact, no documents have been
placed on record to persuade the Court to take any contrary view. The
conduct of the petitioner is such that it would disentitle the petitioner
from claiming any relief in the present writ petition on equitable grounds.
No explanation whatsoever has been given in the entire petition as to
th
why the petitioner did not take any proper steps from 16 August, 2006
nd
to 2 February, 2007, and the present writ petition was lodged in this
th
Court on 7 April, 2007. This inordinate and unexplained delay, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, would render the petition liable for
dismissal. It was for the petitioner to establish by cogent pleadings and
supporting documents that the action of the respondents was arbitrary
or was suffering from the vice of colourable exercise of power.
No averments in the writ petition have been made, much less supported
by any documents, which could form reasonable basis for arriving at the
conclusion that the action of the respondents was arbitrary. We find
no merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed while leaving the
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:50 :::
-6-
parties to bear their own costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:50 :::
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 820 OF 2007
M/s. Rockwell (INDIA), through )
Proprietor Mr. Bharat A. Bhansali, )
rd
having address at Flat No. 12, 3 floor, )
83 Banganga Road, Saraswat Building, )
Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400 006 )...Petitioner
versus
1. The Transport Manager, )
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation Transport, )
Turbhe Depot, Navi Mumbai-400 705 )
2. The Municipal Commissioner, )
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, )
Belapur Bhavan, Plot No.3, Sector 11, Belapur, )
Navi Mumbai. )
3. M/s. Ronak Advertising, through Proprietor )
Mr. Amardeep Singh, A-208, Vashi Plaza, )
Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 )..Respondents
Mr. K.H. Giri for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandesh Deshpande for respondent No.1.
Mr. J.G. Reddy for respondent No.2.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
Judgment reserved on: June 11, 2007
Judgment delivered on: June 21, 2007
JUDGMENT (Per Swatanter Kumar, C.J.):
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:50 :::
-2-
The Transport Manager, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
Transport issued a public advertisement in the local newspaper
nd
“Lokmat” on 22 July, 2006. In the advertisement it was stated that the
tender forms for construction of 183 bus shelters would be available
th th
during the period 24 July, 2006 to 14 August, 2006. The tenders
th
were required to be submitted by 15.00 Hrs. on 16 August, 2006, and
they were to be opened in the presence of the parties on the same day
at 16.00 Hrs. The petitioner, who claims to be one of the bidders, has
th
averred in the petition that on 16 August, 2006, no officer of
respondent No.1 was available at the Office of first respondent for
opening the tenders and no further notice was put on the notice board
with regard to deferment of date for opening of the tenders. The
petitioner, through his advocate, issued a notice to the first respondent
nd
on 2 February, 2007, seeking information about the date on which
the tenders would be opened. This letter was replied to by the first
th
respondent on 6 February, 2007. From the reply it became evident
st
that the tenders had been opened on 31 October, 2006, and the
tender was awarded to respondent No.3. The petitioner was aggrieved
by the said action of the first respondent as, according to the petitioner,
the tenders were opened behind the back of the petitioner and
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:50 :::
-3-
awarding of tender to respondent No.3 was in a most arbitrary and
discriminatory manner.
2. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the first respondent
wherein it was stated that in accordance with condition No. 9.1 of the
terms and conditions of the tender, the date of opening of tender would
be displayed on the notice board and accordingly a notice was
th
published on the notice board of the main gate on 26 October, 2006.
However, the said date was deferred and all the tenderers were
st
informed telephonically that the tenders would be opened on 31
October, 2006. The tenders were actually opened on that day and the
tender was awarded to the highest bidder i.e. respondent No.3. A
comparative chart of the highest bidder has been placed on record and
it is stated that out of the awarded work, respondent No.3 has already
completed major part of the work and as such the writ petition is liable
to be dismissed.
3. The petitioner is a proprietary concern and is carrying on the
business of advertising. The tender was floated by respondent No.1 for
construction of 183 bus shelters as per the specification and drawing
provided by the first respondent. The dates as aforenoticed are not in
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:50 :::
-4-
th
dispute. The tenders were to be opened on 16 August, 2006, but the
same were not opened and, according to the first respondent, due
intimation was given by publishing a notice on the notice board that
th
the tenders would be opened on 26 October, 2006. These tenders
st
were then opened on 31 October, 2006, after telephonically informing
all the persons. The official respondents as well as the private
respondent have admitted that out of the five tenderers, three
tenderers were present. It is also not in dispute that out of the total 183
bus shelters for which the tender was invited, 100 bus shelters have
already been completed by the private respondent. Specific objection
has been taken against the maintainability of the petition on the ground
that the petition suffers from the plea of delay and laches as the
th nd
petitioner made no effort right from 16 August, 2006 to 2 February,
2007, to find out the fate of his tender and in fact the petitioner took no
legal steps to claim any relief of his grievance, if any. The tender was
awarded to respondent No.3. Condition No.9.1 of the terms and
conditions of the tender reads as under:-
“9.1 If possible the tenders received will be opened on
16.08.2006 at 16.00 hrs. at the office of Transport Manager
in the presence of desirous bidder or in the presence of
their representative. Otherwise date of tender opening will
be displayed on notice board.”
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:50 :::
-5-
4. A bare reading of the above condition shows that the said
condition itself had an element of relaxation and tenders could be
opened on any subsequent date by placing the information in that
behalf on the Notice Board which, according to the respondents, was
duly done. We have no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed by the
first and third respondents and, in fact, no documents have been
placed on record to persuade the Court to take any contrary view. The
conduct of the petitioner is such that it would disentitle the petitioner
from claiming any relief in the present writ petition on equitable grounds.
No explanation whatsoever has been given in the entire petition as to
th
why the petitioner did not take any proper steps from 16 August, 2006
nd
to 2 February, 2007, and the present writ petition was lodged in this
th
Court on 7 April, 2007. This inordinate and unexplained delay, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, would render the petition liable for
dismissal. It was for the petitioner to establish by cogent pleadings and
supporting documents that the action of the respondents was arbitrary
or was suffering from the vice of colourable exercise of power.
No averments in the writ petition have been made, much less supported
by any documents, which could form reasonable basis for arriving at the
conclusion that the action of the respondents was arbitrary. We find
no merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed while leaving the
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:50 :::
-6-
parties to bear their own costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:50 :::