gst 1 wp635.07.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 635 OF 2007. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3126 OF 2010. Gammon India Ltd. ... .... .... ..... Petitioner. v/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... .... .... Respondents. Mr.S.S.Kurdukar, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.Ashutosh Kumbhamoni with Mr.L.M.Acharya, Adv. For respondent Nos.2 and 3 and for the Applicant In CA No.3126 of 2010. Mr.M .R.Phal, Adv. For respondent No.4. CORAM: DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. 21 December, 2010. PC: The Petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to impugn the award of a contract to the Fourth Respondent relating to a Build Operate and Transfer Project of water supply to the township of Ulhasnagar. The Petition was admitted by an order of a Division Bench of 11th September, 2007. By an interim order of this Court status quo in terms of a statement which was made on behalf of the Fourth Respondent was ordered to be maintained on 12th July, 2007. A Civil Application has now been filed by the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and its Commissioner who are impleaded as the Third and Fourth Respondents to the petition. Yesterday a statement was made on behalf of the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation to the effect that the Corporation has now taken a conscious decision to invite fresh tenders since as a result of the pendency of these proceedings, the entire scheme for the supply of water to Ulhasnagar Township has been held up for nearly six years. gst 2 wp635.07.sxw The Civil Application has been taken out by the Corporation and by its Commissioner, inter alia, seeking to recall the interim orders or in the alternate to permit the Corporation to cancel the tender process and to invite fresh bids. 2. The Corporation has averred in para 3 of the Civil Application that as a result of the order of status quo no work order was issued and no agreement came to be executed in favour of the Fourth Respondent, Pratibha Industries Limited. Moreover, it has been stated that though the tender was for an independent water source and to augment the existence water supply scheme up to and including the service reservoirs and also for operation and maintenance the scheme has come to a grinding halt as a result of these proceedings. The Corporation has emphasized the importance of the project and the urgency for an independent source of water supply to Ulhasnagar township which has been held up for several years. It has been stated that arrangements for water supply have been made through MIDC which is charging a rate of Rs. 7/- per 1000 liters whereas the other outlying Corporations are able to receive water at the rate of Rs. 4/- per 1000 liters. In these circumstances the Standing Committee of the Corporation passed a Resolution on 14th December, 2010 resolving to move this Court with liberty to withdraw or cancel the earlier tender process and to start a fresh tender process. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation states that in the meantime the Central Government has also evolved new schemes for augmenting water supply to townships and the Corporation desires to have a fresh look at the entire matter afresh. 4. Yesterday, when a similar request was made on behalf of the Corporation, Counsel appearing on behalf of the successful bidder had submitted that this decision of the Corporation should not affect the right of the successful bidder to adopt appropriate proceedings, if so advised, to challenge the decision of the Corporation to invite fresh bids despite the issuance of a letter of intent to the Forth Respondent. gst 3 wp635.07.sxw 5. Essentially in view of the decision which has now been taken by the Corporation, the Petition is rendered infructuous, since the challenge in the Petition was to the decision of the Corporation to award the contract to the Fourth Respondent. As regards the correctness or the validity of the decision of the Corporation to invite fresh bids, we do not intend to express any view on that aspect since that is not the subject matter of these proceedings. Hence, particularly having regard to the issue of public interest involved viz. the need for water supply to the township of Ulhasangar on an urgent basis, we are of the view that the decision of the Corporation as set out in the Civil Application should be taken on record. In view of the decision of the Corporation, we dispose of the Petition as having been rendered infrucutous. Consequently, the interim order dated 12th July 2007 shall come to an end. We however clarify that we have had no occasion to comment on the entitlement, if any, of the Fourth Respondent who would be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, if it is aggrieved by the decision of the Corporation noted earlier to invite fresh bids. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Fourth Respondent states that in the event that the Fourth Respondent does not desire to challenge the decision of the Corporation, the Corporation may refund to the Fourth Respondent the deposits which were effected in compliance of the letter of intent. Counsel appearing for the Corporation states on instructions that if within a period of two weeks from today the Fourth Respondent communicates its intention to the Corporation not to challenge the decision to invite fresh bids, the Corporation shall duly refund the deposits, if any, received from the Fourth Respondent. 7. Both the Petition and the Civil Application shall accordingly stand disposed of in these terms. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J)