JUDGMENT : (PER B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Heard finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2 By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, 10 petitioners seek direction to respondent no.1, Nagpur Municipal Corporation and respondent no. 2 its Executive Engineer to provide work of water distribution only to 207 tankers with 25 additional tankers i.e. only to persons whose names figure at serial no. 1 to 232 in the merit list. Other prayer is to direct respondent nos. 1 & 2 not to provide that work to tanker owners whose names figure at serial no. 233 to 358 in that merit list. In present matter, it is not in dispute that in response to notice (E-notice) calling for Expression of Interest (EOI) issued on 23.6.2016, total 394 tanker owners responded. The first 358 tanker owners therein have their vehicles registered in 2016 and therefore, have been short listed and held fit in the process. 3. Petitioners submit that in EOI, the number of vehicles of all capacities needed by Corporation has been expressly restricted to 207 and in case of emergency, reserved pull of 25 vehicles is also envisaged. Hence, as per EOI, entire work of supply of water within various Wards of Nagpur Municipal Corporation must be handed over to and handled through only 207 plus 25 tanker owners. 4. Advocate Shri. Voditel submits that the figure of 207 plus 25 has been arrived at with due application of mind. Considering that figure and area to be catered, tanker owners have estimated the business available for themselves and have found rate quoted by them viable because of the assured trips for their respective vehicle per day. As respondent no. 1 & 2 have not kept this promise and increased the number of tanker owners beyond 232 to 358, the business of first 207 tanker owners or 232 tanker owners in merit list would be adversely affected. He contends that this change therefore, is unilateral and unsustainable. 5. He further submits that after this Court issued notice, a reply affidavit has been filed and an excuse of need of supplying water to certain more areas like Hudkeshwar and Narsala has been pleaded. He submits that, this area was already considered and thereafter, the requirement of 207 plus 25 was worked out. 5. He further submits that after this Court issued notice, a reply affidavit has been filed and an excuse of need of supplying water to certain more areas like Hudkeshwar and Narsala has been pleaded. He submits that, this area was already considered and thereafter, the requirement of 207 plus 25 was worked out. Thus, a false or lame excuse is being pressed into service before this Court. 6. He has also invited attention to Resolution of Standing Committee dated 17.10.2016 to urge that that Resolution also does not enable respondent nos. 1 & 2 to travel beyond limit of 207 plus 25. He submits that therefore, it was / is not necessary for petitioners to challenge that Resolution. In the alternate and without prejudice, he submits that Resolution of Standing Committee can not be read and it can not travel beyond the need duly recognized by office at 207 plus 25. The expansion of zone to 358 therefore on the basis of said Resolution is unwarranted and arbitrary. 7. He has drawn support from Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported at 2012 (4) Bom R 683 in Welspun Projects Ltd. Vs. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation, Thane, particularly paragraph nos. 30, 49 and 52 thereof. He submits that the Bids Evaluation Committee / Standing Committee in present matter also as in that matter acted, without jurisdiction. 8. Advocate Shri. Quazi appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2 has invited our attention to reply affidavit. He submits that invitation was only to express interest and thus Bids were invited. Till issuance of Work Order on 5.11.2016, there was no contract with any tanker owner. All work orders have been issued after 5.11.2016 upto 30.11.2016 and thereafter from 20.12.2016 with reference to the said Resolution of Standing Committee. He contends that the clauses of notice inviting persons to express interest are very clear and no particular quantity of business or trips was assured. No specified number of trips were also assured. He points out that to supply water in areas under 10 zones of Nagpur Municipal Corporation, there are only 15 hydrants available and all vehicles need to collect water from those points. Demand for water in morning is more and hence water needs to be catered to those area in specific hours. He adds that water can not be supplied at odd hours. Demand for water in morning is more and hence water needs to be catered to those area in specific hours. He adds that water can not be supplied at odd hours. He therefore, submits that effective supply can be only during day time for very short period and hence more number of tankers are required. Though particular number was stipulated in advertisement, after the offers come, the same were processed and entire material was placed before Standing Committee. Standing Committee, in its wisdom has on 17.10.2016 found it not fit to restrict work to just 207 or 207 plus 25 persons in merit list but it has found that services of all 358 registered vehicles need to be used. Accordingly, in the light of this Resolution dated 17.10.2016, the Work Orders have been issued from 5.11.2016 onwards as per the need felt by Corporation. He contends that in absence of challenge to this Resolution of Standing Committee, the petitioners can not succeed. 9. He further adds that even otherwise, as it was only an advertisement inviting offers, in absence of any definite plea of estoppal or legitimate expectation, the petitioner can not succeed. He has also made available the original file of Corporation regarding processing of the EOI for perusal of this Court. 10. Advocate Shri. Samarth, Shri. Bhutada and Shri. Ghare for respective interveners have supported argument of Shri. Quazi. They submit that in view of specific prayer not to allot work to those in merit list whose names figure beyond 232, the said persons ought to have been joined as 'party respondents'. It is pointed out that this Court has permitted their respective clients to intervene in the matter and total number of interveners before this Court is about 41. Thus, other affected persons are not even interveners before this Court. 11. Reliance has been placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 2016 SC 4305 in Afcons Infrstructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail corporation Ltd. & Anr. to urge that as such competitors who are in fact beneficiaries in present matter are not joined as party respondents, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Advocate Shri. Voditel in reply has submitted that merit list as per advertisement was to consist of only 207 plus 25 persons and as such the persons whose names figure beyond 232 are not necessary parties at all. 12. Advocate Shri. Voditel in reply has submitted that merit list as per advertisement was to consist of only 207 plus 25 persons and as such the persons whose names figure beyond 232 are not necessary parties at all. He has also invited our attention to the list of tanker owners placed on record by respondents nos. 1 & 2 as part of Annexure R-4. That list is titled 'List of Tanker Owners' and issued letter of intimation vide Standing Committee Resolution No. 596 dated 17.10.2016. It shows that the Work Orders have been issued to first 207 persons from 5.11.2016 to 18.11.2016 while persons whose names appear at serial no. 208 upto serial no. 355 therein have been issued Work Orders mostly on 20.12.2016 or thereafter. He contends that this document therefore, even does not support the stand of respondent nos. 1 & 2 that work has been distributed as per the Resolution of Standing Committee. While answering to the query, learned counsel also submitted that as respondent nos. 1 and 2 are Statutory Body, the stipulation in advertisement is binding upon them and any deviation therefrom needed to be supported / justified by proper material. Figure of 232 tanker owners was expressly advertised and there is no material on record or any plea to show that that number was found insufficient. Resolution of Standing Committee also does not contain any such material and a false and lame excuse of catering to Hudkeshwar and Narsala area has been pressed into service though said area had already entered the consideration of authorities before floating EOI. 13. After hearing respective counsel, we find that the terms and conditions of EOI though point out vide clause 1.2.B while defining extent of work, total requirement of vehicles, the same is qualified by stipulation that quantity or capacity may change as per requirement and changing the quantity is discretion of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. Clause 1.4 lays down criteria for selection of vehicles. It is stipulated that merit list is to be prepared in descending order of date of manufacture of vehicle. It is also made clear that the limit for registration of multiple vehicles of one owner is restricted to two only. Clause 1.4 lays down criteria for selection of vehicles. It is stipulated that merit list is to be prepared in descending order of date of manufacture of vehicle. It is also made clear that the limit for registration of multiple vehicles of one owner is restricted to two only. As per clause 1.5.12 initial contract period is of one year from the date of registration of a vehicle with Nagpur Municipal Corporation and it can be extended for further period of one year. Clause 1.20 is again about period of contract and contains identical provision. Clause 1.26 deals with allotment of work to successful bidder and it reads: “NMC does not bind itself for allotment of work to all participant of EOI in whole / part thereof. The allotment of place and period of work will be discretion of NMC. No interference will be entertained in any case. The shifting of place of work from time to time will be binding on bidder. The work allotment will be performed as per actual requirement. If there is less requirement, NMC may curtail the tankers or phasing out the tanker and no assurance of allotment of work to all successful bidder is hereby given in this EOI.” 14. Terms of reference accompanying the EOI also show the right of NMC to decide to scale up or scale down number of vehicles or trips per vehicle. In special conditions of contract accompanying EOI, vide 'clause-6' NMC has declared that it is not bound to allot any fix quantum or regular work to the Bidder, the requirements may vary zone-wise from time to time. It has also reserved to itself right to reduce such number of trips or to terminate any, few or all tankers as per demand of water assessed by it. Vide clause 13, it has also reserved right to allot work at approved rates to vehicles who have not taken part in the Bid, if the vehicle fulfills the conditions as required in the Bid. 15. In the light of these stipulations, petitioners have given their offer and list of 394 tanker owners was then prepared by respondent no.2. This list was presented to Standing Committee for further processing. 16. Standing Committee has considered the issue in its meeting dated 17.10.2016. The subject is “Subject No. 596” and it deals with four distinct items. 15. In the light of these stipulations, petitioners have given their offer and list of 394 tanker owners was then prepared by respondent no.2. This list was presented to Standing Committee for further processing. 16. Standing Committee has considered the issue in its meeting dated 17.10.2016. The subject is “Subject No. 596” and it deals with four distinct items. By First Item, the rates for transporting water have been approved. By Second Item, Standing Committee accepted the proposal of Workshop Department and permitted registration of 394 tanker owners found eligible or qualified in EOI. By last Item i.e. Item No. 4, the rate to be paid to transporters who were continuing till 30.10.2016 is decided. 17. Item No. 3 in said Subject No. 596 is the bone of contention between parties. Subject put by office was to allot work to first 207 tanker owners in a list prepared by it after processing EOI. Office also proposed that remaining tanker owners be provided work as per its availability. This issue has been considered and Standing Committee has resolved to allot work of transportation of water through tankers to all tankers / vehicles registered with Corporation in 2016. Thus, though EOI specified the need to be 207 plus 25 and the office of respondent no. 1 and 2 accordingly put a subject only to allot work to 207 tanker owners whose names appear at serial no.1 to 207 in merit list, Standing Committee, in its wisdom, has thought it proper to provide transportation work to all vehicle owners registered in 2016. Standing Committee has therefore expanded the zone of consideration available for allotment of work. 18. The Work Orders have been issued to petitioners after this resolution and first such Work Order has been issued on 5.11.2016. Each Work Order mentions said Resolution of Standing Committee. The petitioners have not disputed this Resolution in any manner. They have not also challenged it. Effort was to urge that Resolution needed to be understood as accepting proposal of office to provide work only to 207 plus 25 tanker owners. Thus, when contract between respondent no. 1 and petitioners came into existence because of Work Orders, it is in tune with Resolution of Standing Committee dated 17.10.2016. 19. Various clauses of advertisement inviting Expression of Interest also show that there was no promise to any petitioner of any assured work or assured quantity. Thus, when contract between respondent no. 1 and petitioners came into existence because of Work Orders, it is in tune with Resolution of Standing Committee dated 17.10.2016. 19. Various clauses of advertisement inviting Expression of Interest also show that there was no promise to any petitioner of any assured work or assured quantity. The fact that work, quantity may vary or shall depend upon need was brought on record by respondent Corporation. The petitioners, therefore, can not claim that they had any legitimate expectation in the matter to urge that respondent nos. 1 & 2 be stopped from providing work to 355 tanker owners. The facts pleaded in petition do not expressly bring on record any definite case in this respect. The petitioners have not pointed out as to how providing work to persons beyond 232 has adversely affected their work or trips. In the absence of this material, we are not inclined to accept the submission on affidavit by respondent that need to employ more vehicles has been recognized and accordingly Standing Committee has passed a Resolution. There are no allegations of malafides against Standing Committee or any member of Standing Committee or even against respondent no.1 and 2. 20. In the light of this findings, we do not find it necessary to deal with the judgment cited as precedent before this Court. The petitioners were aware of all the terms and conditions on which they were supposed to express their interest. They were also aware when they received Work Order, about the contents of Resolution of Standing Committee. Having accepted Work Order, they can not be permitted to turn around and claim that work should be restricted only to first 207 or then 207 plus 25 tanker owners. Resolution of Standing Committee dated 17.10.2016 is decisive of terms and conditions. Petitioners have not assailed it. Here offer was made by petitioners and the consideration by the Standing Committee is not eclipsed by the document inviting EOI. It was open to petitioners to back out when work order was issued to them. 21. Moreover, the matter is in the domain of a private contract between parties. The respondent nos. 1 & 2 may be Statutory Bodies, still contract entered into by them is not statutory in nature. Grievance of such a nature, therefore, can not be redressed by approaching this Court. 22. 21. Moreover, the matter is in the domain of a private contract between parties. The respondent nos. 1 & 2 may be Statutory Bodies, still contract entered into by them is not statutory in nature. Grievance of such a nature, therefore, can not be redressed by approaching this Court. 22. If the petition is to be allowed, other tanker owners who are getting work from respondent no. 1 & 2 will be thrown out of business without even hearing them. Hence, failure to implead them must be held to be fatal. 23. In this situation, in any case, if the petitioners wish to claim any compensation or damages, they have to approach appropriate forum as per law for redressal of said grievance. In the light of this discussion, we find no case made out. Writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No cost.