IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2719 OF 2007 PETITION (L) NO.2719 OF 2007 PETITION (L) NO.2719 OF 2007 Raj Transport & Trading Co. ... Petitioners & Anr. Vs. Board of Trustees of the ... Respondents Port of Mumbai Mr. Bhaumi Patel i/b Ronnie H. Mirza for Petitioner. Mr. U.J. Makhija i/b Motiwala & Co. for Respondent no. 1. Mr. A.S. Khan with Mr. H.V. Mehta for Union of India. WITH WITH WITH WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.40 OF 2008 PETITION NO.40 OF 2008 PETITION NO.40 OF 2008 SKS Logistics Ltd. ... Petitioner Vs. Board of Trustees of the ... Respondents Port Trust of Mumbai & Anr. Mr. H.N. Thakore i/b Thakore & Jariwala for Petitioner. Mr. U.J. Makhija i/b Motiwala & Co. for Respondent 1 to 3. Mr. A.S. Khan with H.V. Mehta for Union of India. Mr. Vachan Bodke with Madhur Hiraskar i/b Chitnis Vaithy - Intervenor CORAM CORAM CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & S.A. BOBDE, JJ. : BILAL NAZKI & S.A. BOBDE, JJ. : BILAL NAZKI & S.A. BOBDE, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2008 : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2008 : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : : :- 1) There are three suppliers supplying water to the ships. There was a controversy about the Circular having been issued by the Port Health Officer as to whether only water supplied by the 2 Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) would be received for supplying to the ships or potable chlorinated water would be accepted. The Circular is dated 11th January, 2005. We, therefore called Port Health Officer, who appeared in person and filed his Affidavit and submitted that supply of water need not be necessary from the BMC, but it should be potable and chlorinated. 2) The Petitioners in both the cases are in position to supply fit, potable and chlorinated water. According to them, they are not able to supply B.M.C. water, as there is only water supplier who has filed Chamber Summons and in order to create a monopoly of that party it was insisted that BMC water should be supplied. We have heard the intervenor. He submits that as per licence and conditions they should supply the water procured from B.M.C., but the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2719 of 2007 have shown latest licence in which there is no such condition. 3) Prima facie, we feel that all the three parties who are disputing in this Court have entered the supplying business through back door 3 as at no point of time, applications were invited from suppliers to supply the water. All the three parties are supplying water from the year 1988-1989. Therefore, we intend to direct the Board authorities to advertise and give a fair chance to every supplier and then consider engaging the suppliers who will ensure quality of water and will supply at the lowest rate and for this purpose Port authorities should advertise, call for tenders and finalise the list of suppliers within a period of three months. Since water to ships can’t be stopped, we direct all the three parties to supply water for the interim period. 4) One of the party submitted that he would supply fit, potable and chlorinated water at the rate of Rs.150/- per metric tonne. This rate shall be inclusive. If the third party i.e. intervenor are also ready to supply the water at the rate of Rs.150/- per metric tonne, he should also be allowed to supply water. All the three suppliers shall supply the water in equal proportion as far as practicable. This arrangement will continue for a period of three months. During that period, the appropriate 4 authority shall invite the parties for supply of the water and select the suppliers. 5) Writ Petition is disposed of. ( BILAL NAZKI, J.) BILAL NAZKI, J.) BILAL NAZKI, J.) ( S.A. BOBDE, J.) S.A. BOBDE, J.) S.A. BOBDE, J.)