Bombay High Court
M/S. Ltps Infra Pvt Ltd And Ors vs City And Industrial Development And Ors on 26 March, 2025
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2025:BHC-AS:14457-DB
910.wp.11893-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11893 OF 2024
1. M/s. LTPS infra-Pvt. Ltd. ]
Through director ]
Mr. Lahu Laxman Patil, ]
Address:111, 112 & 113, Sai Arcade, ]
Opp. S. T. Stand, Line Ali, ]
Panvel - 410 206. ]
2. M/s. Aashirwad Construction ]
Through Partner ]
Mr. Rohidas Punaji Bhagat, ]
th
Address:D-609, 4 Floor, Vashi Plaza, ]
Sec - 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703. ]
3. M/s. Ramesh Enterprises ]
Through Proprietors ]
Ramesh Lahu Patil ]
Address:Pratik Co-op. Hsg. ]
Plot No.8, 1st Floor, 'A' Wing, ]
Flat No.101, Sector - 10, ]
Airoli, Navi Mumbai - 400 708. ]
4. M/s. Ekveera Enterprises ]
Through its Proprietor ]
Nilesh Chandu Patil, ]
Address: Diva Koliwada, ]
Thane - Belapur Rd., Sec - 9, Airoli, ]
Navi Mumbai - 400 708. ]
5. M/s. Ekveera Suppliers ]
Through its Proprietor ]
Raju Atmaram Madhavi, ]
Address:Janabai Niwas, ]
Near Hanuman Temple, Airoli Gaon, ]
Airoli, Navi Mumbai - 400 708. ]
6. M/s. Ravindra Atmaram Madhavi ]
Through its Proprietor ]
PMB 1
910.wp.11893-2024.odt
Ravindra Atmaram Madhavi ]
Address:21, Janabai Nawas, Airoli Gaon,]
Near Hanuman Mandir, Airoli, ]
Navi Mumbai, Thane - 400 708. ]
7. M/s. Yojana Construction ]
Through partner ]
Pratik Narayan Bhoir ]
Address:House No.677/002, 1st Floor, ]
Nerul Gaon, Near N M M C Hospital, ]
Sector - 20, Nerul (W), Navi Mumbai, ]
Thane - 400 706. ]
8. M/s. Pranali Transport ]
Through proprietor ]
Rohidas Sudam Bhagat ]
Address:Om Sai Deep, House No.362, ]
Plot No.246, Vashigaon, ]
Navi Mumbai - 400 703. ]
9. M/s. A. H. Palekar ]
Through proprietor-Anil Palekar ]
Having Address at Valvali, ]
Post Navade/Tal-Panvel, Dist. Raigad, ]
Pin code - 410 208. ]
10.M/s. Sanjay Enterprises ]
Through Authorized Signatory ]
Mahesh Bhoir ]
Address:Hari Mahal Co.op.Housing Soc., ]
Shop No.3, Sector-5A, Plot No.43/33/45]
Opp. Railway Crossing, New Panvel (E), ]
Navi Mumbai - 410 206 ] ...Petitioners
Versus
1. City and Industrial Development ]
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. ]
Through its Vice-Chairman Aid ]
Managing Director, Maharashtra, ]
CIDCO Bhavan, CBD Belapur, ]
Navi Mumbai - 400614. ]
PMB 2
910.wp.11893-2024.odt
2. The Superintendent Engineer, ]
Palghar & Railway, CIDCO, ]
6th Floor, CIDCO Bhavan, ]
CBD-Belapur, Navi Mumbai. ]
3. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Principal Secretary ]
Urban Development Department ]
Government of Maharashtra, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra. ] ... Respondents
****
Mr Vijay Kurle a/w Mr Pratik Sarkar, for the Petitioners.
Mr Ashutosh M. Kulkarni a/w Mr Akshay R. Kulkarni, for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2-CIDCO.
Mr O. A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader a/w Ms
G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent No.3.
****
CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ &
M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : 26th MARCH, 2025
JUDGMENT (Per M. S. Karnik, J.) :
-
1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioners inter alia seek to set aside the impugned
notice dated 3rd August 2024 inviting bid by CIDCO and
thereby seeking a direction to reissue the bidding process in
terms of the policy for the PAPs with necessary changes. The
Petitioners pray for further declaration that Clause Nos.10.a,
910.wp.11893-2024.odt
10.b and 10.c of the impugned notice inviting bid as arbitrary,
unreasonable and illegal.
2. The Petitioners are Firms/Companies formed by Project
Affected Persons (PAPs). The companies undertake contract of
Housekeeping, Cleaning, Sweeping and sanitation services.
3. Mr Kurle, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted
that it is the policy of CIDCO to give preference while
awarding contracts for the aforesaid works to the PAPs. The
CIDCO is a Government of Maharashtra undertaking duly
registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
CIDCO is now functioning as New Town Development
Authority (NTDA) and Special Planning Authority (SPA) of
Government of Maharashtra for development of new towns by
planning and developing entire urban infrastructure, providing
municipal services and executing large scale infrastructure
projects. CIDCO issued notice dated 3rd August 2024 inviting
bids through the process of e-bidding for online item rate
percentage bids from the prospective experienced bidders
who have carried out similar type of works indicated
hereinbefore and as mentioned in the notice.
910.wp.11893-2024.odt
4. As a result of acquisition of lands more than two decades
ago, many persons lost their lands and hence CIDCO came
out with a policy for compensating the PAPs. To help the PAPs
survive with dignity, priority was given to the PAPs in the
matter of employment in such works. Mr Kurle submitted that
till the last bidding date 11th March 2024, this policy has been
adhered to. He submits that there is a policy for the
employment of PAPs. He relies upon the earlier notice which
stated that 'CIDCO of Maharashtra Limited through the
process of e-bidding invites "ON LINE" Item Rate Percentage
Bids from the experienced CIDCO PAP's/PAP's of Navi Mumbai
who have carried out Housekeeping, Cleaning, Sweeping &
Sanitation Services for Railway Stations Complex & Forecourt
Area, Metro Stations of Navi Mumbai area for the works
mentioned below...', in support of this submission about the
existence of a policy. Mr Kurle submitted that this is
demonstrative of the fact that priority for an opportunity of
employment is an accepted policy as a part of the long term
benefit CIDCO has assured to the PAPs for their survival. The
PAPs have been serving CIDCO since more than two decades
and hence they are very well experienced fulfilling the prime
910.wp.11893-2024.odt
requirement of CIDCO as stated in the notice inviting bid.
5. It is the grievance of the Petitioners that CIDCO issued
the impugned notice inviting bid dated 3 rd August 2024 in
open category without giving preference to the PAPs as per
aforementioned policy for PAPs and secondly, the Respondent-
CIDCO also have restrained the Petitioners as well as PAPs
from participating in this open bidding process by way of
inserting the following illegal and unreasonable conditions in
the impugned notice which read thus :-
"1. Maximum two bids to be awarded in case the same
bidder found lowest in more that two bids.
2. The Bidders who have been already awarded two
contracts at Railway Stations of MBR., TTNV, BPR & NUR Rail
Corridor under PAP category shall restrain from the
participation in this Bid.
3. The financial bid of those will not be opened if they
have been awarded two contracts of cleaning and sweeping
under PAP category after their participation in the bidding
process of this bid, even though they are qualified in
technical bid evaluation."
6. It is therefore the submission of Mr Kurle that the said
clauses are arbitrary and illegal in view of the existing policy
for the PAPs. The notice is unreasonable and also completely
against the larger public interest as well as that of CIDCO
itself. It is alleged that the same has been inserted with
oblique motive to benefit some pre-determined private parties
910.wp.11893-2024.odt
only to favour them. Mr Kurle then submitted that the notice
inviting bid on an earlier occasion which was in contravention
of the policy for the PAPs was challenged in this Court vide
Writ Petition No.8282 of 2022 filed by Mr Gurunath Goma
Mhatre. CIDCO had then taken a decision to cancel the
bidding process and accordingly a fresh notice was issued
giving preference to PAPs. The minutes of the meeting which
formed the basis for cancellation of the tenders was relied
upon. The case of the Petitioners thus is that they have a
preferential right for being awarded contracts for the work of
Housekeeping, Cleaning, Sweeping and Sanitation as they
have been given this right for the last two decades.
7. Mr Kulkarni, learned counsel for CIDCO, at the outset
referred to a note dated 6th December 2021 signed by the
CE(NMIA) relied upon by the Petitioners in their additional
affidavit dated 2nd September 2024. Mr Kulkarni submits that
CIDCO will abide by the proposal incorporated in the said note
which reads that "In case of more than one bidder quoted
lowest bid amount (L1), then preference will be given to
CIDCO PAP bidder."
910.wp.11893-2024.odt
8. We have heard learned counsel and perused the
materials on record. We find that there is no policy document
placed on record which demonstrates that CIDCO agreed to
give preference to PAPs in the matter of these contracts. As a
result of land acquisition for CIDCO, many agriculturists
became landless. There were agitations opposing the
acquisition. Therefore, as a compensatory package, in
addition to usual land acquisition benefits, CIDCO came up
with 12.5% scheme, whereby developed plots at 12.5% of the
acquired land were allotted to PAPs. Insofar as development
works carried out by CIDCO are concerned, taking into
consideration the loss of the land and contribution of PAPs in
Navi Mumbai Project, only by way of compassionate approach
to award non-specialized works to PAPs, CIDCO has been
giving some priority while awarding such non-specialized
works to the entities formed by PAPs. There are no policies
placed on record and even CIDCO has denied the existence of
any such policy to award exclusively or by way of preference
the contract/tenders to the PAPs or entities formed by PAPs.
CIDCO has emphatically denied the existence of any policy on
the basis of which the entire Petition is founded. We are of the
910.wp.11893-2024.odt
firm view that the Petitioners have not been able to establish
any right for a contract to be awarded in their favour only
because they are PAPs. No doubt the concerns of the PAPs has
to be looked at compassionately, which in our opinion CIDCO
has done so for the last two decades. A stand is taken that
even hereafter, preference in the nature as provided in the
2021 note referred to above will be given due weightage.
9. CIDCO floated 31 tenders for cleaning, sweeping and
sanitation services for Railway station platforms with common
circulation areas and forecourt area spread across various
Railway corridors in Navi Mumbai area. Out of these total 31
tenders, 23 e-bids i.e. almost 75% of total bids were invited
keeping eligibility exclusively for the entities formed by PAPs.
Out of 23 floated tenders, 21 tenders are actually awarded to
various PAP entities. Petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and
10 have been awarded two 2 tenders each, while Petitioner
No.5 has been awarded 1 tender. Thus, total number of
tenders awarded to Petitioners is 19. The remaining 2 tenders
are also awarded to PAP agency who is not the Petitioner in
the said Writ Petition. This process was completed pursuant to
bid notice dated 11th March 2024.
910.wp.11893-2024.odt
10. After the notice inviting bids dated 11 th March 2024 was
published keeping eligibility only for PAPs, there were many
objections raised by Non-PAP entities alleging discrimination
by the CIDCO in the matter of tenders. Therefore, in respect
of remaining 8 bids, the CIDCO floated tenders keeping the
eligibility non-PAP specific and applicable to all otherwise
eligible entities which is challenged by way of the present Writ
Petition.
11. From the record we find that almost every Petitioner has
been awarded one or two tenders for different Railway
corridors. In our opinion the Petitioners cannot monopolize in
their favour all tenders of cleaning, sweeping and sanitation
services at all Railway corridors in Navi Mumbai and insist that
they should be allotted only to PAP entities.
12. So far as the tender under challenge which is in
question, the PAP entities are entitled to participate and they
are not barred completely from participating. However, they
have to compete with all other non-PAP entities also. The
eligibility as regard experience for PAP entities has been
broadened. All PAP entities who have experience of similar
910.wp.11893-2024.odt
work at ports, airports, bus terminus, PSUs, Government
Hospitals/building and public sector buildings are entitled to
participate in the tender, without restricting the eligibility or
experience of carrying out similar work only at Railway station
platforms and forecourt area and Metro stations. Thus, any
PAP entity who is fulfilling the eligibility is entitled to
participate in the present tender as well which decision cannot
be said to be irrational or arbitrary.
13. As regards the challenge to tender condition No.10.a we
find that in the earlier tender floated on 11th March 2024, the
same condition was appearing, of which the Petitioners are
beneficiaries. It is now not open for them to challenge the
same only because for the purposes of this tender they are
find this clause inconvenient. Condition No.10.b and 10.c have
been inserted with a view to avoid monopoly of any particular
PAP entity. So also it is the stand of CIDCO that this is
necessary with a view to enable the concerned bidder to carry
out the work under the tender effectively, satisfactorily and in
the interest of public at large. The challenge in our opinion is
completely misconceived and we do not find any arbitrariness
or irrationality in the said clauses.
910.wp.11893-2024.odt
14. It is a settled principle of law that the author of the
tender is the best person to frame the conditions about the
eligibility criteria because the author only knows what kind of
work is to be accomplished by way of tender. If a tender has
been issued with a view to avoid concentration of work and
monopolistic consequences in the hands of few entities, we do
not find that such an approach unreasonable or arbitrary.
15. We must observe that even though there is no written
policy in existence, CIDCO has been adopting a reasonable
approach for the last two decades to alleviate the sufferings of
the PAPs who were rendered landless as a result of the
acquisition. As indicated earlier, apart from the compensation
for the land acquisition and the benefit of the developed plots
at 12.5% of acquired land allotted to PAPs, awarding tenders
to PAPs was a compassionate measure adopted by CIDCO to
help them. The Petitioners therefore cannot claim exclusive
rights that the tender has to be awarded only in favour of the
Petitioner Companies formed by PAPs merely because for the
last two decades preference was given to them.
16. We do not find the approach of CIDCO unreasonable or
arbitrary justifying our interference in the exercise of writ
910.wp.11893-2024.odt
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. We have no manner of doubt that CIDCO will keep
the concerns of the Petitioners in mind while balancing all
relevant considerations in the matter of awarding of tenders in
future also. The clause in the note viz. "In case of more than
one bidder quoted lowest bid amount (L1), then preference
will be given to CIDCO PAP bidder." as submitted by Mr
Kulkarni on instructions will be given due weightage in future
tender processes.
17. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No
order as to cost.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
