1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2957 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2962 OF 2010 Ramesh Datta Grover ; Petitioner versus Mumbai Agricultural produce Market Committee Mumbai and ors. : Respondents. Mr.P J Thorat for the Petitioner. Mr. N N Bhadrashete for Respondent No.1 in both the petitions. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED:- April 27, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard counsel for the Parties. 2 These Petitions take exception to the decision of the Managing Committee of the APMC dated 23 rd July 2009. By the said decision, the contracts executed in favour of the Petitioner in respect of sublease of canteen premises in terms of the Resolution dated 26 th February 2009 have been cancelled. 2 3 The argument is that such resolution could not have been passed without offering an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. This argument does not commend to us. The resolution dated 23 rd July 2009 is a policy decision of the APMC whereby not only the contracts in favour of the Petitioner have been cancelled but even the other contracts in terms of the resolution dated 26 th February 2009 have been ordered to be terminated with further direction to assign the said contracts by inviting tenders so as to get the best competitive price therefor. 4 The fact that the Respondent/APMC wanted to appoint new contractors by inviting tenders is not an issue before us. What is argued is that the existing contracts in favour of the Petitioner should not have been cancelled unilaterally. It is a common ground that the contracts in favour of the Petitioner were the outcome of the Resolution dated 26 th February 2009 and not on account of Petitioner being the highest bidder in the competitive tender price. The Respondent/APMC has now taken a policy decision that all contracts should be given on tender basis. It will be open to the Petitioner to participate in the said tender process, if he so desires. 5 Counsel appearing for the Respondent/APMC submits that till the tenders are invited from the interested parties by giving a public notice and finalised, the Petitioner can continue to operate from the premises already allotted to him. 3 6 In the event, the Petitioner participates in the tender process and is not successful, he shall vacate the premises within a period of one week from completion of tender process. The Petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking to that effect in this Court, if the Petitioner is interested in availing of this option offered by the Respondent/APMC. If the affidavit of undertaking is not filed within one week from today, it will be open to the Respondent to proceed against the Petitioner in accordance with law. 7 In our opinion, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. 8 Needless to observe that so long the Petitioner occupies the premises allotted to him, he will be liable to pay outgoings in relation to the said premises. 9 The Petitions are disposed of on the above terms. (R.M. SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)