[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sahakar Global Ltd. vs Maharashtra State Road Development ... on 15 May, 2026
Digitally signed
by MULEY
MULEY SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO
PRAVINRAO Date: 1 25-WPL-16463-2026.doc
2026.05.15
22:12:32 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 16463 OF 2026
Sahakar Global Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Maharashtra State Road Development
Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents
-----------------
Mr. Soli Cooper, Senior Advocate a/w Yohann Cooper, Janvi Verma i/by
Warisha Parkar for the Petitioner.
Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate a/w Samarth Jaidev, Jayendra
Kapadia, Tapan Agrawal, Jui Parekh and Indraneel Nanoti i/by Little & Co.
for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Milind More, Addl.GP a/w Nazia Sheikh, AGP for State.
-----------------
CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA AND
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 15 MAY, 2026
(VACATION COURT)
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Petition is moved on behalf of the Petitioner on the ground of
urgency. The Petitioner prays for an ad-interim stay on the tender
cancellation corrigendum bearing Tender Reference No.T-2890 dated 29
April 2026 ("Impugned Order" for short), issued by the second Respondent
as also on the email communication dated 29 April 2026, issued by the
third Respondent to the Petitioner informing the Petitioner about the
cancellation of the said tender. The Petitioner has also sought for an ad-
interim order restraining the Respondents from proceeding further and/or
acting upon fresh tender bearing No.2919 ("Fresh Tender" for short) or any
2 25-WPL-16463-2026.doc
process initiated, pursuant thereto.
3. Mr. Cooper, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner would at the
outset submit that the Impugned Order coupled with the email
communication is arbitrary, non-speaking/reasoned and therefore bad in
law. It is his submission that except for mentioning 'administrative reason'
there is no other reason cited in the Impugned Order and/or the email
communication, conveying such rejection, to the Petitioner.
4. Mr. Cooper would strenuously urge that the conduct of the first and
second Respondents in cancelling the said tender is ex-facie tainted with
malafides. Even on such ground, the Impugned Order and the email
communication deserve to be stayed forthwith. According to Mr. Cooper,
the first and second Respondents intend to favour a particular party/entity
and not award the tender/contract to the Petitioner, for which the
Impugned Order is passed.
5. Mr. Dhond, learned senior counsel for the Respondents has
controverted the submissions of Mr. Cooper.
6. He would submit that pursuant to the Petitioner being declared as a
highest bidder (H1), the Petitioner was called for negotiations. This
pertained to upward revision in the quoted rate for the first year and
subsequently for the second year, the weekly upfront payment to be
increased by 5% of the previous year's weekly upfront payment. This has
been accepted by the Petitioner as duly recorded in its letter dated 20
3 25-WPL-16463-2026.doc
February 2026 addressed to the Chief Engineer of the second Respondent.
7. Mr. Dhond submits that such upward revision in the contract rates
was purely a commercial decision. He would refer to clause 23 of the said
Tender Terms i.e. Negotiations, to submit that the Petitioner has duly
participated in such negotiations which took place for upward revision of
the contract rates.
8. As far as the Impugned Order is concerned, Mr. Dhond would submit
that the Respondents have acted in accordance with clause 27 of the said
Tender Terms which contemplate the right of Respondent No.2 i.e. MSLL to
reject any offer/bid and/or to annul or suspend the tender process and
reject the offer/bids, without assigning any reason at the time prior to
award of the contract.
9. Mr. Dhond would thus urge that there is no warrant for interference
and/or judicial review at this stage as the Petitioner, in light of the
submissions advanced, deserves no ad-interim relief/protection.
10. Having heard learned senior counsel for the parties at some length,
we at the outset clarify that today we are considering the Petition only on
the prayer of the Petitioner for ad-interim reliefs.
11. At the further outset, it is pertinent to note that the said tender has
been floated for inviting bids for the appointment of a toll operator for
collection of user fees at the Rajiv Gandhi Sea Link (Bandra Worli Sea Link)
Toll Plaza. Such contract contemplates collection of tolls for a period of 104
4 25-WPL-16463-2026.doc
weeks on a weekly upfront payment basis with an Estimated Realization
Amount of Rs.444.69 crores, as also averred in the Petition.
12. We have noted the undisputed factual position that the Petitioner was
the highest bidder (H1) in the said tender process. The fact that the
Petitioner participated in the negotiations with the second and third
Respondent for the revision of the contract rates is also not controverted.
This becomes evident from the letter dated 20 February 2026 (supra)
addressed by the Petitioner to the Chief Engineer of the second Respondent,
where the Petitioner submitted its revised proposal.
13. In the above context, it is pertinent to refer to clause 23 of the tender
terms which reads thus:-
"23 NEGOTIATIONS: MSLL may carry out negotiations with the
substantially responsive Bidder whose Bid/Offer is highest, for
modification of the Offer/Bid by calling Bidder in its office in which
case, the Bidder shall remain present in the office for negotiations. As a
result of negotiation, the Bidder shall give its revised Bid/Offer in
writing. The original Offer/Bid shall then be treated as modified and
modified Offer/Bid shall be treated as the final Offer/Bid.
If for any reason, the Offer/Bid of the H1 Bidder is not accepted or not
finalized, the MSLL may carry out negotiations with the H2 Bidder or
may cancel the entire tender process without assigning any reasons
whatsoever."
A perusal of the above brings to the fore that the second Respondent
(MSLL) may carry out negotiations with the highest bidder for modification
of the Offer/Bid by calling upon the bidder for negotiations. If for any
5 25-WPL-16463-2026.doc
reason such Offer/Bid of H1, is not accepted or not finalized there is a clear
option available to the second Respondent (MSLL) to carry out negotiations
with the next H2 bidder or even cancel the entire tender process without
assigning any reasons whatsoever.
14. We find it apposite to refer to clause 27 of the said Tender Terms
which reads thus:-
"27 MSLL'S RIGHTS TO REJECT:- Notwithstanding clause 26, the MSLL
reserve the right to accept or reject any offer/Bid and to annul or
suspend the tender process and reject all the offer/Bids, without
assigning any reason, at any time prior to award of contract without any
assurance for costs or consequences on the part of the Bidders."
15. The above clause clarifies that the second Respondent (MSLL) has
reserved its right to accept or reject any Offer/Bid and to annul or suspend
the tender process, without assigning any reason, at any time prior to the
award of the contract.
16. In the above context in our prima facie view, the Impugned Order
appears to have been passed in accordance with the clauses of the tender
terms (supra). Without delving into the merits at this stage, in our prima
facie view, the same does not warrant an ad-interim stay, at this stage,
considering clause 27 of the Tender Terms (supra). This is more particularly
when such rejection of the said tender is at the stage prior to awarding such
contract in favour of the Petitioner.
17. We have noted the submission of Mr. Dhond that a fresh tender
6 25-WPL-16463-2026.doc
pursuant to the Impugned Order has been floated by the first and second
Respondents wherein the bids are to be submitted until 29 May 2026. Such
fresh tender was floated on 29 April 2026 by the first and second
Respondents. There is clearly no embargo for the Petitioner to participate in
the fresh tender process and the Respondents do not dispute such position.
18. On a specific query raised by the Court to Mr. Dhond to extend the
last date of submission of bids qua the fresh tender floated on 29 April
2026, it is submitted that this would tantamount to interference in the
tender process.
19. We may observe that as noted above, the said tender is floated for a
project which is completely in public interest, dealing with the Bandra Worli
Sea Link which is a pivotal infrastructural milestone for Mumbai city. In
view thereof, we, prima facie, are not inclined to halt the fresh tender
process when the Petitioner is at full liberty to participate in the same,
without prejudice to the Petitioner's rights and contentions being pursued in
the present proceedings. This would not cause any prejudice to the
Petitioner. However, having heard learned counsel for the parties, to enable
the Court to delve on the merits and/or nuances of the respective rival
contentions, we deem it appropriate, as requested, that the Respondents file
their Affidavit-in-Reply to the Petition to deal with such challenge as
mounted in the Petition.
20. In our considered view, interest of justice would be met by subjecting
7 25-WPL-16463-2026.doc
the fresh tender floated by the first and second Respondent dated 29 April
2026 to the outcome of this Petition. Further, the participants in the fresh
tender may be put on notice by the first and second Respondent of the
pendency of this Petition, which in our prima facie view would serve the
ends of justice. Accordingly, we do not find it just and/or expedient to grant
any ad-interim stay, at this stage of the proceedings.
21. Let the Affidavit-in-Reply be filed by the Respondents on or before 8
June 2026, with an advance copy served upon the Advocate for the
Petitioner.
22. List the Petition for further consideration, before the Regular Court,
on 8 June 2026.
23. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
[SANDESH D. PATIL, J.] [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]
