1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 141 OF 2010. 1. Mr. Ronny Dias, Major of age, S/o. J. G. Armando Dias, r/o. H. No.2, Murida, Cuncolim, Salcete-Goa .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Cuncolim Municipal Council Through its Chief Officer, Cuncolim, Salcete Goa. 2. The Director of Municipal Administration, Government of Goa, Panaji – Goa. 3. The Chief Engineer-I P.W.D., Altinho, Panaji- Goa 4. The State of Goa Through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Porvorim – Goa 5. M/s. Jolly Constructions, Engineers & Contractors, Through its Proprietor Paroda, Quepem- Goa .. Respondents. Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M. S. Sonak with Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocates for the respondent No.1. Mr. S. Bandodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. D. Naik, 2 Advocate for the respondent No.5. CORAM :- S. J. VAZIFDAR & U. D. SALVI, JJ. DATE :- 27 th April, 2010. ORAL ORDER : (Per S. J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. The petitioner has challenged the issuance of a tender in favour of respondent no.5 for providing and laying hot mix carpet at various places within the jurisdiction of respondent No.1 in the sum of Rs.1,93,16,000/-. The tenders were published around August, 2009. 2. There is no doubt that the work is of public importance. What is contended, however, is that there are in fact no roads upon which such work is to be carried out and that the entire process is a fraud. 3. Initially, it was submitted that there were no sketches pertaining to the said work when inspection was taken in September, 2009. It is, however, admitted that pursuant to an application under the R.T.I. Act, all the documents including the sketches were furnished. It is 3 pertinent to note that the writ petition was filed thereafter, but no reference was made to the fact that the petitioner had been furnished copies of the sketches pursuant to his application under the R.T.I. Act. This is a fact which ought to have been but was not disclosed. The disclosure was only in the amendment. That file was produced before the Court. The file contains the sketches, which contain inter-alia the measurement of roads. 4. We sent for the file of respondent No.1 as well as of the P.W.D.- respondent No.3. The same indicates that the tender was not floated without following any procedure. The records of the P.W.D. and respondent No.1 disclose that respondent No.1 fixed estimates and issued a tender only after obtaining the technical sanction from the P.W.D. on 6th May, 2009. This was in the sum of Rs.1,89,63,200/-. The files disclose that the P.W.D. had been furnished necessary information for obtaining the technical sanction order. 5. To leave no room for doubt, Mr. Sonak, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 stated at the outset that respondent No.1 was agreeable to a Commissioner being appointed for the purpose of making a 4 report as to whether in fact the work is done pursuant to the tender. This should allay any apprehension. 6. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of by the following order : (i) The reliefs as claimed in the writ petition are rejected. (ii) The petitioner is at liberty to apply to this Court for the appointment of a Commissioner to make a report as to whether the work is done but only at the petitioner's cost. (iii) All interim orders stand vacated. S. J. VAZIFDAR, J U. D. SALVI, J. SMA