mst 1 PIL.172.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.172 OF 2009 Peoples Action Committee and another Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Mr.Satish R.Borulkar for the Petitioners. Mr.R.P.Behare, AGP for respondents 1 to 3. Mr.Rafique Dada, Sr.Counsel with Prashant Chavan i/by Little & Co. for respondent no.4. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 13th September 2010 P. C. : 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, purporting to be a public interest litigation, the petitioners have challenged the decision dated 18th June 2009 of the Cabinet Sub- Committee and the subsequent tender notice dated 20 July 2009 issued by the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent-Corporation”) by which the respondent- Corporation invited tenders for securitizing the toll income at five entry points of Mumbai. 2. Pursuant to the directions of the State Government, the respondent-Corporation had issued a tender notice dated 27 November mst 2 PIL.172.2009 2007 inviting tenders for securitization of five entry points to Mumbai and improvement of Sion-Panvel highway under one single contract. Subsequently, the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Infrastructure took a decision in the meeting held on 18th June 2009 to de-link the Sion- Panvel highway for securitization of five entry points to Mumbai. Accordingly, the tender notice dated 27 Noember 2007 was cancelled and the respondent- Corporation issued a fresh notice on 22 June 2009 only for securitization of five entry points to Mumbai along with maintenance of fly overs and allied structures. 3. In response to the above tender notice, 19 bidders purchased blank tender forms and seven bidders submitted their bids. The respondent-Corporation took a decision on 17 August 2009 that out of seven bids four bids were liable to be rejected as non-responsive for failure to satisfy the respective eligibility/bid criteria and conditions prescribed under the bid document. One of the unsuccessful bidders M/s.Reliance Infrastructure Limited filed a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No.1542 of 2009, apprehending their disqualification from the tender process. The said writ petition has been heard today and is being disposed off by a separate judgment. 4. After opening of the financial bids, the respondent-Corporation vide its letter dated 18 August 2009 called upon the successful bidder M/s.MEP-Ideal Toll Consortium for negotiations as per Clause 5.25 of Volume-I of the bid document. The respondent-Corporation thereafter submitted a proposal to the State Government for approval. It was at that stage that the petitioner filed the present petition purported to be a public interest litigation challenging the decision of the Cabinet Sub- Committee to de-link the Sion-Panvel highway project from mst 3 PIL.172.2009 securitization of five entry points to Mumbai. 5. Without going into the case of the respondents that the present petition has been filed at the instance of one of the unsuccessful bidders, we are of the view that in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of an authority whether two projects should be entrusted to one party through one single tender notice or whether two separate tenders processes should be followed for awarding two separate contracts. On this ground alone we find no merit in this petition and the petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.