*1* wpl.1637.1646.10 kps I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (Lodging) NO.1637 OF 2010 R.P.S. Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd.. ..Petitioners -Versus- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and another. ..Respondents .... Mr.P.K. Samdani, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.P. Sen i/b M/s Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Petitioners. Mr.E.P. Bharucha, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vidya S. Gharpure, for the Respondent No.1/BMC. Mr.N.Engineer a/w Mr.N.S.Rodrigues and Mr.Amit Yadkikar i/b Desai & Diwanji for the Respondent No.2. .... AND WRIT PETITION (Lodging) NO.1646 OF 2010 M/s Ramesh Kumar and Company. ..Petitioners -Versus- The Deputy Chief Engineer, (Storm Water Drains), Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others. ..Respondents .... Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Mr.Sachin Shetye i/b Avinash H. Fatangare for the Petitioners. Mr.E.P. Bharucha, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vidya S. Gharpure, for the Respondent No.1/BMC. Smt.S.M.Dandekar, AGP for the Respondent No.7. Mr.V.A. Thorat, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Ashish Kamath, Mr.Ranjit Shetty & Mr.Shailesh Poria i/b M/s Hariani & Company for the Respondent No. 10. .... *2* wpl.1637.1646.10 CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 26th July, 2010. P.C. 1 By these two petitions filed by the two different parties, the Petitioners have challenged the decision taken by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai on 12th July, 2010 declaring the Petitioners’ tenders as non responsive. The said decision was communicated to the Petitioners by letters dated 14th July, 2010. 2 The Respondent/ Corporation issued a tender notice dated 30.06.2009 inviting tenders for the work of design & construction of renovations and rehabilitation including investigations, desilting, survey, enlarged access manholes, reinforced cement concrete lining and protective coating followed by 7 years comprehensive maintenance thereof, at three different places. The tenders were required to be submitted by 27.07.2009 which date was subsequently extended to 17.08.2009. Clause-5 of Section IA of the tender states as under:- “5. Qualification criteria: The tenderer shall meet all the following criteria. (A) Technical i. The tenderer shall have experience in carrying out similar works of construction, renovation and rehabilitation of underground storm water drains/sewers/ water tunnels of minimum 4 sq. meter cross- section area with minimum 1500 meter length completed in last seven (7) years from the date of tender submission, in single contract. ii. The tenderer shall have experience in the lining of underground conduits with RCC cast in situ lining using travelling forms or shortcrete, with a minimum of 34000 Sq.m. (or minimum 6800 m3) lining installed in the last 7 years from the date of tender submission, in single contract. iii. The tenderer shall have successfully carried out cement slurry grouting of minimum 2500 m3 (or minimum 1650 Metric Tons cement quantity in grouting) in the last 7 years from the date of *3* wpl.1637.1646.10 tender submission, in single contract.” 3 The Respondent/ Corporation has taken a decision that the Petitioners herein do not fulfill the technical criteria No.3 above. 4 After issuance of tender notice, the parties had sought clarification and the Respondent/ Corporation had given clarification vide letter dated 07.08.2009. Thereafter, there was pre-bid meeting on 12.07.2010 and the technical bids were opened. There was detailed examination of the technical proposals for rehabilitation and renovation of Britannia Outfall, Dr.E. Moses Road and Patthe Bapurao Marg Drains followed by comprehensive maintenance for seven years and the relevant portion of the minutes was recorded as under:- “Director (ES & P) asked the Consultants M/s MWH to explain the work involved under the tender to highlight the Purpose, Principle, Material Used, Methodology, Work Environment and Standardization of procedures/works, to enable the bidders to understand the nature of work envisaged under this tender. On the basis of consultant’s explanation there was a consensus of all participants that there is a distinct and substantial difference in colgrout used in Colcrete Masonry and Cement Slurry grouting envisaged under the tender. Accordingly there is a substantial difference in the nature of work claimed as experience by the two bidders for their qualifications.” 5 The Petitioners are challenging the above decision of the Respondent/ Corporation and it is contended that there is no difference between colgrout used in colcrete masonry and cement slurry grouting as the grouting is a process which bonds similar or new materials to old surface. The cement slurry grouting is mixture of cement, water and colgrout whereas the colcrete masonry is mixture of cement, sand and water. In colcrete masonry, the sand is additionally added and the cement slurry grouting is done by force. Thus, there is no technical difference. *4* wpl.1637.1646.10 Reliance is placed on the opinion given by the I.I.T., Mumbai and also the opinion given by the M/s SADE. 6 The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Corporation has submitted that these are technical issues which the experts of the Respondent have taken care of and held the Petitioners as disqualified because the experience of the Petitioners has not been at par with the requirement for the said work. 7 Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we are of the view that the technical issues on which the decision of the Respondent/ Corporation is challenged, cannot be examined by this Court as we are not sitting in appeal and judicial review is possible only on the issue of decision making process. What the Petitioners are seeking is to hold that the colcrete masonry and grouting is the same thing as cement slurry grouting envisaged under the tender. Without expressing any view on merits of the said issue, we are inclined to hold that this Court is not supposed to sit in appeal over the decision of the Respondent in these matters. We are of the view that having regard to the nature of the project, any judicial interference will delay the project of public importance. Therefore, we are not inclined to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petitions are summarily dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.