Contractors Challenging Tender Conditions Via PIL Pollute Purity Of The Stream Of Public Interest Litigation: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday observed that permitting contractors to file PILs challenging tender conditions is a sheer abuse of process of the court, and “pollutes purity of the stream of PIL”.A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor dismissed a PIL by a contractor against a tender issued by Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority...
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday observed that permitting contractors to file PILs challenging tender conditions is a sheer abuse of process of the court, and “pollutes purity of the stream of PIL”.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor dismissed a PIL by a contractor against a tender issued by Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner.
“However, permitting a contractor to file a PIL petition challenging the conditions of a tender, in our opinion, is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of Court and an effort to pollute the purity of the stream of public interest litigation. The petitioner has himself stated in the petition that he is engaged in the similar business as mentioned in the subject tender. Accordingly, this petition cannot be permitted to be entertained as a PIL petition.”
The court opined that the petition, purportedly filed in public interest, was actually filed with oblique motives. The petitioner, claiming to be a social worker engaged in a similar business as mentioned in the tender, claimed to be aggrieved by certain conditions of the subject tender.
On account of the impugned tender conditions, some of the contractors are not able to participate in the tender process in relation to the subject tender, the petitioner claimed.
In this case, the petitioner's assertion of not having any personal interest contradicted his own admission of being engaged in a similar business as mentioned in the tender, the court noted. Such contradictory statements led the court to conclude that the petition was instituted for pursuing personal and extraneous causes rather than a genuine public cause.
“In para 4 of the petition, while making declaration and undertaking, the petitioner has stated that the present petition is being filed as a last resort by way of the PIL petition and that the petitioner does not have any personal interest in the matter. Such statement, if seen juxtaposed with the particulars of the petitioner, as disclosed by him in this PIL petition itself, is absolutely strange and simply dis-entitles the petitioner to seek any relief in this PIL petition”, the court said.
The court highlighted the rise of PIL petitions and the need to encourage genuine petitions that advocate for public interest. However, it cautioned against frivolous PILs that plead personal or extraneous causes, citing the Supreme Court's observations in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal.
Consequently, the court dismissed the PIL petition with exemplary costs amounting to Rs. 50,000 to be paid by the petitioner to KEM Hospital, Mumbai, within four weeks. The petitioner was directed to furnish a receipt of the payment to the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the court within the subsequent two weeks.
Failure to comply with the order would result in the costs being realized as arrears of land revenue, the court said. The matter was scheduled for reporting compliance on June 18, 2024.
Case no. – Public Interest Litigation No. 18 of 2024
Case Title – Nilesh Chandrakant Kamble v. MMRDA Govt of Maharashtra & Ors.