1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1821 OF 2009 SEW Infrastructure Limited & Anr. : Petitioners V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai & Ors. : Respondents .... WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.303 OF 2009 In WRIT PETITION NO.1821 OF 2009 SEW Infrastructure Limited & Anr. : Petitioners V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai & Ors. : Respondents And Unity Infraprojects Limited : Applicant .... Dr.V.V.Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate, i/b. Ranjit & Co., for the petitioners. Mr.K.K.Singhvi, Senior Advocate, with Ms G.S. Joglekar for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.M.R.Phal for resp. no.4. Ms S.I.Joshi with Mr.Anand Poojari and Ms Sarika Karnik i/b. S.I. Joshi & Co., for respondent no.5. Mr.V.R.Dhond with Mr.S.V.Kadam, Ms Shobha Khavnekar and Ms Apeksha Sharma i/b. Kadam & Co., for respondent no.6 & applicant in Chamber Summons No.303 of 2009. .... 2 CORAM : J.N.PATEL, ACTING C.J. & B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 08, 2010. P.C.: Heard. 2. The petitioners, by this petition, impugn the tender process which was published by the respondent-Municipal Corporation relating to water supply project on the ground that the impugned tender terms are mala fide and vitiated by manifest arbitrariness since the same are designed to pervert the tender process and ensure that the award of the impugned tender can be made only to respondent no.4 and/or entities affiliated with the respondent no.4, in addition to other grounds. Though notice was issued to the other side, no interim orders were granted in favour of the petitioners. 3. The respondent-Corporation has filed affidavit-in-reply of their Executive Engineer (Water Supply Project) Construction-I wherein it has been contended that the work orders were issued to the respondent nos.4 to 6 on 24.8.2009 and work commenced on 1.9.2009 and that the respondent-Corporation had given amount of mobilization advance to the respondent no.4 to the tune of Rs.20 crores, respondent no.5 to the tune of 3 Rs.42 crores and the respondent no.6 to the tune of Rs.32.50 crores and the respondent-Corporastion has also paid running bills of the respondent nos.4 and 5 of Rs.4,04,93,486/- and Rs.97,12,657/-, respectively, which has been paid between 8.1.2010 and 11.1.2010. It is further stated that running bill for the work done to the tune of Rs.47.51 crores raised by the respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 are still pending for payment. 4. Another contention of the respondent-Corporation is that the petitioners having participated in the bid on the conditions mentioned in the tender are now estopped from challenging the terms of tender simply because the petitioners’ bid has been rejected. 5. In our view, the work under the tender has already been allocated to the respondent nos.4 to 6 and substantial amounts have been paid to them as mobilisation advance and against running bills raised by them, it will not be proper for this Court to interfere in the matter as it will not be in the larger public interest. If the petitioners have any claim in the matter, they are at liberty to take recourse provided under the law. 6. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter and all issues and contentions raised by the petitioners are left open. 4 7. Petition is dismissed. 8. In view of the dismissal of the Petition, the Chamber Summons does not survive and the same stands disposed of. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE B. R. GAVAI, J.