gopi 1 PIL-Lodg.48-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (LODG.) NO.48 OF 2011 Manish Kasliwal ....Petitioner V/s. Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors...Respondents. Mr. Abhishek Bharti i/b. M/s.M.P. Vashi & Associates for the petitioner. Ms. Geeta Joglekar, for the respondent No.1. CORAM: MOHIT SHAH, C.J., AND MRS.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 12 September 2011. P.C. In this Public Interest Petition, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai to streamline the tender process after announcing a tender policy and also to invite fresh tenders for remedial and conversional work for Zone I and II after withdrawal of tender invited pursuant to the tender notice dated 4 May 2011. The petitioner has submitted in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the petition that earlier for SWD work the Corporation needed to invite one tender i.e. conversion and remedial work, but now separate tenders are being invited. The petitioner has raised his apprehension in the following terms:- “13. It is pertinent to note that if along with the remedial work, a contractor is required to carry out the conversion work; the Respondents ought to have mentioned the quality of work. There gopi 2 PIL-Lodg.48-11 is no mention as to how much conversion work is required to be carried out. Moreover, along with remedial work, if the municipal contractor is required to do conversion work there is no need to invite separate tenders for conversion work. It is also clear that if the contractor is given remedial work the contractor will carry out the conversion work, there are chances that both the contractors, who are allotted remedial work and conversion work, prepare two bills for one work raising separate bills for same work causing duplication of works thus causing heavy financial loss to the corporation. 14. The petitioner states that very recently the Municipal Corporation has caught a fraud where municipal contractors have tried to submit bills for the Sewerage Operation work not carried out by them. The municipal Commissioner has now directed the municipal officers to file FIR against such contractors, who have submitted bills though no work was carried out by them.” 2. The petitioner also submitted representation dated 25 July 2011 on the aforesaid lines. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition without indicating why such a request is made after having filed this PIL. 4. Without expressing any opinion on the issue raised in this petition, we dispose of this petition with a direction that the respondent Municipal Corporation shall consider the aforesaid apprehension while carrying on with the tender process and before taking a decision in the matter. The aforesaid apprehension and the petitioner’s representation dated 25 July gopi 3 PIL-Lodg.48-11 2011 at Exhibit “B” to the petition shall be considered by the Municipal Corporation within three weeks from today. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)