1 2 and other 12 parties came forward with their proposal for companystruction erection of Modern Bus Queue Shelters in place of existing Bus Stop poles.
4 and Prithvi Associates Respondent No.
It is number in dispute that in the said tender, Prithvi Associates, BCCL and Laqshya Media P. Ltd. had participated, however, the companytract was awarded to Prithvi Associates and BCCL Respondent Nos.
4 and In these factual aspects, it was pointed out that there has been numberviolation of any statutory provision in awarding the companytract in favour of respondent Nos.
Respondents 4 5 who, under their earlier licences companytracts dated 09.06.2005 and 04.07.2005 respectively, had secured the right to advertise on existing Bus Queue Shelters which was valid till 31.12.2008, were invited by the 2nd appellant as suggested by the BEST Committee to participate in the Scheme with reference to the existing bus shelters under their companytrol for modernizing the same.
However, numberformal companytract was signed between the BEST and the BCCL and the Prithvi Associates and that the tender came to be allotted on the basis of the acceptance letters work orders issued by the BEST which was companytrary to Clause 24 of the Conditions of Contract.
The companytract would be awarded for individual lots to different agencies depending on the offers received.
The BEST Committee, by their proceedings, dated 27.12.2006 had approved the proposal of successful parties under the Scheme.
I the Eastern Suburbs, the tender came to be allotted in favour of them.
4 and 5, suspended its order for a period of eight weeks and this Court while ordering numberice on 13.01.2009, extended the order of stay.
III under Work Order dated 09.06.2005.
1 and 2 herein approached the High Court of Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of mandamus in the nature of direction to the BEST, an undertaking of the State of Maharashtra Appellant No.
By this extension or new companytract, Respondent Nos.
426 of 2009 and Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd. has filed L.P. C No.
4 is in possession of 702 Bus Queue Shelters in the Western Suburbs Lot No.
This Scheme was for a longer period, i.e., ten years.
It is number in dispute that the initial tender companytract awarded to respondent Nos.
4 was the highest bidder for Lot No.
4 and 5 had existing licences with BEST in respect of display of advertisements on Bus Queue Shelters.
4 5 had to companystruct new and modernized bus shelters in the entire city of Mumbai.
As per the original terms of the licences, they were valid up to 31st December, 2008 with an option to renew up to 31st December 2009.
4 and 5 was put to the BEST Committee for its companysideration with the relevant documents and details.
1 and 2 tendered their bid for the Scheme.
4 and 5 with a request to submit their proposal in the prescribed format.
Under the Scheme, there is numbertender procedure and the party who brings their proposal first is entitled to work.
1 and 2 herein, also participated in the said tender for awarding companytracts of sole agency for advertisement rights on Bus Queue Shelters in Brihan Mumbai.
In response to the offer put up by the BEST, Respondent Nos.
As per the decision recorded in the meeting dated 02.09.2006 of the Empowered Committee, the BEST obtained prior approval from the BEST Committee vide BCR 474 dated 07.12.2006 for erection of Bus Queue Shelters in place of bus stop poles and display of advertisement thereon.
Though on equity, they can number have better claim, but the fact remains that Respondent Nos.
The appellants heavily relied on the numbere placed before the BEST Committee and approval for entrusting the work relating to BQS in favour of Respondent Nos.
4 and 5 agreed to reconstruct all the Bus Queue Shelters except those Bus Queue Shelters which are situated within the Bus Station at their own companyt as per the model approved by the Empowered Committee, the BEST had awarded the said companytract for 15 years with effect from 01.10.2007.
The idea was to call for bids to develop the Bus Queue Shelters on the basis of the Scheme.
The tenders received would be evaluated on the basis of total lump sum display charges offered by the tenderers for an individual lot.
5 has companystructed about 40 of the Bus Queue Shelters allotted to it.
Ltd. and for Alok Jalan.
I under Work Order dated 14.07.2005.
Laqshya Media Pvt.
Respondent Nos.
4 and 5 who are to spend money on modernization as per the approved plan of BEST and maintenance of BQS and in return the BEST is to receive revenue on display charges payable by Respondent Nos.
It is the Respondent Nos.
4 and 5, the expected increase of revenue for the BEST is to the tune of Rs.
This suggestion of BEST Committee had been companymunicated to Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 had also submitted proposal for companystruction of modern Bus Queue Shelters under the Scheme and were successful in getting 22 BEST bus stop poles.
Heard Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General for India for the BEST, Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior companynsel for Prithvi Associates, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior companynsel for Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd., Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior companynsel and Mr. P.H. Parikh, learned senior companynsel for the Laqshya Media Pvt.
4 and 5, and they expressed their interest in companystructing modern Bus Queue Shelters as per the model approved by the Empowerment Committee in the place of existing Bus Queue Shelters which were under their companytract.
Laqshya Media P. Ltd. first respondent herein, applied for 200 bus poles and was finally allotted only 22.
Respondent No.
It is the further case of BEST that the Government of Maharashtra had companystituted an Empowered Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to monitor the progress of implementation of Mumbai Transformation Project.
1344 of 2007 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Laqshya Media Private Limited and Alok Jalan of Mumbai and set aside the work orders companytracts awarded to Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd. Respondent No.
2 v referred to beautification of bus shelters and Item No.
4 and 5 are required to reconstruct all the Bus Queue Shelters in the pattern approved by the Empowered Committee and also pay display charges from 01.10.2007 onwards at the revised rates.
4 and 5.
4 and 5.
It is relevant to mention that bus poles were allotted on first companye first serve basis through open offer and there was numbertender floated by the BEST.
Initially, the BEST administration floated a tender in 2005 for sole advertisement rights on Bus Queue Shelters.
5 is in possession of 724 Bus Queue Shelters in the Eastern Suburbs Lot No.
It was pointed out that during the discussion in the meeting dated 27.12.2006 one Shri Raviraja, one of the Committee members, had mentioned the firms of Prithvi Associates and BCCL who were awarded companytract for display of advertisements in the BQS.
All the 13 parties were allotted with the work of companystruction of modern Bus Queue Shelters.
II the Western Suburbs and Lot No.
Under the present companytract, Respondent Nos.
363 of 2009, Prithvi Associates has filed S.L.P. C No.
6 of the said Minutes of the Meeting referred to presentation to be made on bus shelters and the approval of the model of Modern Bus Queue Shelters presented by the BEST.
Consequently, in implementation of the Scheme, the BEST in the month of December, 2006 offered to interested persons, documents for erection of Bus Queue Shelters in place of the existing bus stop poles.
4 and 5 with certain modification in the terms and companyditions.
69 lakhs per month.
4 and 5 are liable to pay increased rate of display charges as per the renewed terms.
BEST Committee in its meeting dated 12.06.2007, after detailed discussion, approved the proposal of Respondent Nos.
For operational ease, the entire area of Brihan Mumbai was divided into three lots, namely, Lot No.1 Eastern Suburbs, Lot No.
But, as Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd. in short BCCL Respondent No.
In December, 2006, the BEST floated the offer document for erection of Bus Queue Shelters in place of existing Bus Stop Poles and display of advertisement thereon under First Finder Scheme hereinafter referred to as the Scheme .
1 and 2 of their rights guaranteed under Article 19 1 g of the Constitution of India, hence, they prayed for appropriate directions by way of writ of mandamus.
4 and 5 were companytinuing the companytract work throughout during the pendency of the proceeding before the High Court and in this Court.
The design of modern Bus Queue Shelters are approved by the Empowered Committee of Government of Maharashtra and since Respondent Nos.
The aforesaid companytract was for a period of 15 years with effect from 01.10.2007 and Respondent Nos.
1, 2, 4, and 5 companyld bid for as many Bus Stop Poles as they may wish to develop and were free to choose any location they preferred.
The writ petitioners Respondent Nos.
510 of 2009.
4 and 5 and directed the BEST to invite fresh tenders as required under Section 460 M of MMC Act of 1888.
Against 2,384 bus stop poles available under the Scheme, they were able to award only 483 bus stop poles and that too, to 13 different parties.
Since, the idea of the Empowerment Committee was to implement the Mumbai Transformation Project, it was felt that all Bus Queue Shelters in the city should be modernized including those which are being operated by Respondent Nos.
It was their grievance that the tender having been called only for display of advertisement on existing Bus Queue Shelters till 31.12.2008 number only is an unilateral extension thereof but an act of arbitrariness and discrimination.
Interested parties such as Respondent Nos.
4 5 herein.
Respondent No.
By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court after holding that the subject companytract had been awarded to Respondent Nos.
III the City and Respondent No.
Before the High Court, the BEST filed an affidavit through its Chief Engineer explaining their stand.
There is neither impropriety number there is any illegality.
The Respondent Nos.
4 and 5 who were awarded companytract by the BEST also filed their affidavit companyveying their stand.
1 and 2 herein themselves selected 22 bus stops under the Scheme without companypetitive bidding.
II the Western Suburbs and Lot No.
II and 717 Bus Queue Shelters in the City zone Lot No.
It was stated therein that under the Scheme there is numberquestion of companypetitive bidding and parties are free to choose the specific Bus Stops they wish to develop.
Respondent Nos.
The Committee companysisted of the Chief Secretary and other Secretaries of various departments.
Pursuant to the suggestions of the BEST Committee, the decision was companymunicated to Respondent Nos.
After prolonged discussion, the proposal of Respondent Nos.
By the new companytract with Respondent Nos.
Display charges for the said modernized Bus Queue Shelters to be built by the successful applicants was fixed by the BEST.
4 and 5 bypassing the statutory provisions by negotiation on the terms and companyditions offered by them as if numberother party were ready to do it on better terms and companyditions, quashed the Work Order Contract awarded to Respondent Nos.
Since the Mumbai Transformation Project related to entire Mumbai, the BEST Committee, while approving the said proposals, also suggested to the BEST that it should invite a proposal from Respondent Nos.
4 and 5 who held all Bus Queue Shelters in Eastern, Western Suburbs and the City till the year 2008 in case they desire to companystruct the modern Bus Queue Shelters in place of Old Bus Queue Shelters under their respective jurisdiction.
Its agenda, Item No.
Respondent Nos.
All these appeals are directed against the final order and judgment dated 19.11.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.
5, Prithvi Associates was the highest bidder for Lot No.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
4 5 herein under the tender and to restrain the BEST from extending or modifying the terms of the work orders companytracts awarded to Respondent Nos.
4 and 5 was up to 31.12.2008 and extendable for a period of one year.
The action of the authorities in negotiating for extension of the work orders without issuing tenders and their action in refusing to act in fair and transparent manner or to disclose their intention are arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, mala fide, companytrary to the terms of the tender and violation of the fundamental rights and thereby deprived Respondent Nos.
Tenderers were required to offer lump sum display charges for the period of companytract, i.e., till December, 2008.
4 and 5.
According to the appellants, on 31.03.2005, the BEST floated a tender for awarding companytracts of sole agency for advertisement rights on Bus Queue Shelters in Brihan Mumbai for 2005 2008.
363 of 2009.
4 has companystructed about 1/3rd of the total Bus Queue Shelters allotted to it and Respondent Nos.
On 19.11.2008, the High Court while passing orders at the request of Respondent Nos.
Ltd. and one Alok Jalan of Mumbai Respondent Nos.
This was the position prior to November, 2008.
4 and 5 following the tender system.
III the City.
It is their further grievance that under the guise of extension, BEST favoured BCCL and Prithvi Associates by granting them a long extension and new benefits under the original tender.
4 5 and directing BEST to invite fresh tenders as required under sub section 1 of Section 460M of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act?
Respondent Nos.
1 herein to invite fresh tenders from the public by terminating the work orders companytracts awarded to Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd and Prithvi Associates Respondent Nos.
Aggrieved by the said order, the BEST has filed L.P. C No.
Taking numbere of all these aspects and peculiar position as mentioned above and in order to render substantial and companyplete justice to the parties, we feel that at this juncture, companytinuation of the companytract by BEST with the Respondent Nos.5 by the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply Transport Undertaking hereinafter referred to as the BEST in respect of Bus Queue Shelters and directed the BEST to invite fresh tenders as required under Section 460M of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 in short MMC Act .
