Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 872 (BOM)

K. P. Ibrahim v. State Of Goa

2020-08-17

M.S.JAWALKAR, M.S.SONAK

body2020
JUDGMENT M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. S.S. Kakodkar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. D.J. Pangam, the learned Advocate General with Mr. V. Shetye, the learned Additional Govt. Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 6 and Mr. A. D. Bhobe, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.7. 2. Consistent with the orders earlier made, we issue Rule. We make the Rule returnable forthwith at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Even, otherwise, this is a matter relating to award of a tender and the Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. and Hon'ble M.S. Jawalkar, J. had, by an order dated 2nd June, 2020, granted interim relief, restraining Respondents No.1 to 6 from issuing any work order in favour of Respondent No.7 herein. Therefore, it is only appropriate that this Petition is disposed of finally at an early date. 4. The Executive Engineer, Works Division XXIV (PHE), Pubic Works Department, Bicholim, Goa, vide Notice dated 28th January, 2019, invited tenders from the approved and eligible contractors of the State PWD, Goa registered in appropriate class and categories, inter alia, for the work of Augmentation of 40MLD WTP at Podocem, supplying, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of 5 Nos of 2 MLD pressure filtration plants at Podocem in Poriem Constituency. The estimated cost put to bid was indicated in the tender notice at Rs. 4,77,48,019.10 (Rupees four crores, seventy seven lakhs, forty eight thousand nineteen and paise ten only). 5. The Petitioner, who is an eligible and approved contractor with the Goa State PWD, submitted his bid at Rs. 3,67,65,974.71 (Rupees three crores, sixty seven lakhs, sixty five thousand, nine hundred seventy four and paise seventy one only) which was 23% below the estimated cost. Similarly, even Respondent No.7 submitted his bid in an amount of Rs. 3,81,98,415.28 (Rupees three crores, eighty one lakhs, ninety eight thousand, four hundred fifteen and paise twenty eight only), which was precisely 20% below the estimated cost. This means that the Petitioner's bid was lower than the bid of Respondent No.7 by an amount of Rs. 14,32,440.98 (Rupees fourteen lakhs, thirty two thousand, four hundred and forty and paise ninety eight only). This means that the Petitioner's bid was lower than the bid of Respondent No.7 by an amount of Rs. 14,32,440.98 (Rupees fourteen lakhs, thirty two thousand, four hundred and forty and paise ninety eight only). This was the position obtaining on the date of opening of the tenders on 14/2/2019 in the Office of the Superintending Engineering, Circle V (PHE), PWD, Altinho, Panaji, Goa i.e. Respondent No.4 in this Petition (SE). 6. The SE, before taking any decision on the acceptance or otherwise of the bids received, addressed a communication dated 27th February, 2019 to the Executive Engineers of Works Divisions III, IX, XVII, XX, XXI, XXIV of the PWD, informing them about the receipt of competitive bids for the project in which, the lowest tenderer's bid was found to be 23% below the estimated cost put to tender. The SE, possibly in the context of the Government Circular dated 12/11/2007, which, inter alia, had provided that tenders pertaining to roads, buildings, water supply and sewerage works quoted more than 20% below the estimated cost put to tender should be rejected, called for information about acceptance of any such bids which were found to be 20% below the estimated cost, in the last one year. 7. Some time in June, 2019, various Executive Engineers, submitted the information sought for by the SE. Under the provisions of the Right to Information Act (RTI), such information was made available to the Petitioner in a tabular form. Since, such information is relevant to the issues raised in the present Petition, the same is transcribed below for convenience of reference: WORKS QUOTED BEYOND 20% BELOW & ACCEPTED DIVISION NAME OF WORK ESTIMATE COST QUOTED AMOUNT % QUOTED Executive Engineer Nil Executive Engineer XVII 1) Maintenance of RWSS in Pernem Taluka supply cost test & comm. of Submessible pumpset 45,7600/- 3,01,101/- 34.20% below 2) Impr. of WSS to Porvorim & Its surrounding areas Supply cost. Test of comm. of stand by centrifigal Pumpset at PDA Colony Pumphouse. 28,21,837/- 22,40,970/- 20.58% below 3) Supply cost of on load tap Changer L.T. Transformer of 100KVA 33KV /SS)V for 12 30MLD substate or 50 MLD substation at Assonora Water Works 62,76,616/- 50,17,527/- 20.06% below 4) Maintenance of RWSS in Pernem Taluka supply cost test & comm. of submerseble pumpset at Madhlmaj and Arambol resp. 28,21,837/- 22,40,970/- 20.58% below 3) Supply cost of on load tap Changer L.T. Transformer of 100KVA 33KV /SS)V for 12 30MLD substate or 50 MLD substation at Assonora Water Works 62,76,616/- 50,17,527/- 20.06% below 4) Maintenance of RWSS in Pernem Taluka supply cost test & comm. of submerseble pumpset at Madhlmaj and Arambol resp. of Mandrem Constituency (Retender) 3,19,683/- 2,11,118/- 33.96% below Executive Engineer XXI 1) Minor ext of sewerlines to facilitate HSC at Panchwadi & other places to Mormagao Constituency (Retender) 22,27,103.25 17,64,957/- 20.75% below 2) Providing severline network to the areas from Chicalim Junction to Alto Chicalim in Dabolim Constituency 78,98,336/- 62,43,565/- 20.95% below 3) MVSS SH procurement of sewer rods & accessories 4,05,700/- 317663/- 21.70% below 4) Maintenance of Vasco Sewerage system SHProcurement of sewer rods and accessories. 343813.56 269206.02 21.70% below 5) Maintenance of Margao Sewerage system SH Procurement of Sewer Rods and Accessories 3,84,500/- 2,80,301/- 27% below Executive Engineer XX Supplying, installing, testing & commissioning of 240HP centrifigal pumps at Chapoli pumping station of Canacona const. in Canacona Taluka 75,57518/- ohm engg 30.18% below Executive Engineer XXIV 1) supplying of submersible pumpsets stand by at various WSS in Sanquelim Constituency 2,95,522.30 29.60% below 2) Maintenance of RWSS in Sattari Taluka supply of Submersible pumpsets 2,28,848.11 33% below 8. Based upon the aforesaid information and being satisfied that there was no obstacle to the acceptance of the Petitioner's bid, the SE, in June, 2019, made the following endorsement/noting in the file : "After assessing the tender and relevant documents/ information enclosed by division the lowest tender of Shri K.P. Ibrahim amounting to Rs.3,67,65,974/- representing 23% below estimated cost of Rs.4,77,48,019 put to tender is accepted due to the following reasons. 1) Major cost of component of work is based on market rates 2) Enquiry with PHE divisions revealed that tenders beyond 20% below are accepted where market rates are involved bypassing the circular No.1-8-07/SSW/PWDVol1/2007-08/522 dated 12.11.2007. 3) An amount of Rs.14,32,440 is saved to the exchequer." 9. The aforesaid endorsement/noting has been quoted verbatim by the Petitioner in paragraph 13 of the Petition and the same has not been denied by the Executive Engineer i.e. Respondent No.5, who has filed an affidavit, opposing grant of relief in this Petition. 3) An amount of Rs.14,32,440 is saved to the exchequer." 9. The aforesaid endorsement/noting has been quoted verbatim by the Petitioner in paragraph 13 of the Petition and the same has not been denied by the Executive Engineer i.e. Respondent No.5, who has filed an affidavit, opposing grant of relief in this Petition. In response to the categorical averments in paragraph 13 of the Petition, the Executive Engineer has merely stated that the Petitioner has relied upon the internal correspondence of the Department and that the letter of acceptance to the eligible contractor is issued only after the expenditure sanction for the work is accorded. 10. The record indicates that the SE further addressed a communication dated 24th June, 2019 to the Executive Engineer, informing the latter that the lowest quotation of the Petitioner is, hereby, accepted. The communication also required the Executive Engineer to ascertain availability of funds before the issue of work order and further even the expenditure sanction is to be obtained before the issue of work order. The record also indicates that the Executive Engineer, prepared a draft work order in favour of the Petitioner, which bears no date, but, bears signature of the Executive Engineer. There is no dispute, however, that such work order was never actually issued or communicated to the Petitioner in June, 2019, or at any time thereafter. 11. The record indicates that for a period of almost 7 months, or so, i.e. upto February, 2020, no work order was issued in favour of the Petitioner. On 14/2/2020, however, the SE, addressed a communication to the Executive Engineer, purporting to supersede his earlier communication dated 24th June, 2019 and this time informing the Executive Engineer that the tender of Respondent No.7 which was exactly 20% below the estimated cost put to tender is accepted and, therefore, the work order may be issued in favour of Respondent No.7, after ascertaining availability of funds and obtaining expenditure sanction. 12. This means that, the SE has made a complete volte face from his earlier decision as reflected not only in the notings, but also in the communication dated 24th June, 2019 issued by him to the Executive Engineer informing the latter about the acceptance of the Petitioner's bid. At least, the communication dated 14/2/2020 contains no reasons whatsoever for this volte face, after expiry of almost 7 months. At least, the communication dated 14/2/2020 contains no reasons whatsoever for this volte face, after expiry of almost 7 months. This is what has prompted the Petitioner to institute the present Petition alleging, inter alia, the illegality, irrationality, arbitrariness and even mala fides. 13. Mr. Kakodkar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since returns now disclose that the only reason for rejecting the Petitioner's bid was the stipulation in the Circular dated 12/11/2007 that the bids below 20% of the estimated costs ought to be rejected, such a stipulation should have been found place in the notice inviting tender, so that the eligible tenderers could have bid accordingly. In any case, he submits that the Circular dated 12/11/2007 was not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, because it has always been the stance of the PWD that such circulars apply only where the estimated costs are prepared on the basis of the Goa Schedule of Rates (GSR). He relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & anr. vs. State of Goa and ors. - Writ Petition No.45/2006, decided on 6th June, 2006 in support of this contention. 14. Mr. Kakodkar points out that in the present case, the estimated costs were on the basis of the open market rates to the extent of almost 93% and the GSR rates were made applicable to only the balance 7%. Mr. Kakodkar submits that the Petitioner had mistakenly included the GST amounts and pleaded that the estimated costs to the extent of 70% were on the basis of the open market rates. He submits that upon excluding the GST, the correct percentage is 93% and not 70%. He submits that even where the estimated costs to the extent of 70% are based upon the open market rates, the Circular dated 12/11/2007 was clearly inapplicable according to the stance of the State/PWD itself in the case of Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 15. Mr. Kakodkar submits that in situations similar to the present one, the State Government/PWD has not applied this circular and proceeded to issue work orders in favour of the bidders whose bids were 20% - 34.20% below the estimated costs, as is evident from the information supplied by the various Executive Engineers of the PWD to the SE. 15. Mr. Kakodkar submits that in situations similar to the present one, the State Government/PWD has not applied this circular and proceeded to issue work orders in favour of the bidders whose bids were 20% - 34.20% below the estimated costs, as is evident from the information supplied by the various Executive Engineers of the PWD to the SE. He submits that the Respondents have practiced hostile discrimination against the Petitioner and there is no explanation in the returns for practicing such hostile discrimination. He, therefore, submits that this is a clear case of illegality, irrationality, arbitrariness and discrimination which vitiates the decision making process. 16. Mr. Kakodkar submits that the mandatory condition regards furnish of declaration of the works in hand, was breached by Respondent No.7 and, therefore, the tender of Respondent No.7 ought to have been rejected outright. However, at later stage, Mr. Kakodkar conceded that the Petitioner, along with the affidavit-inrejoinder had attached an incorrect format in which the declaration had to be furnished. He pointed out the circumstances in which the unintentional error took place and even tendered apology on behalf of the Petitioner. He, however, submits that Respondent No.7 has not submitted the declaration in terms of the correct format and, therefore, the tender of Respondent No.7 deserved to be rejected outright. He submits that this aspect has not been considered by the Respondents while accepting the tender of Respondent No.7 belatedly, even though the bid amount of Respondent No.7 was higher than the bid amount of the Petitioner. 17. Mr. Kakodkar has relied on the decisions in the cases of Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and others, (2007) 14 SCC 517 ; and AIR India Ltd. vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and ors.,2002 2 SCC 617 to submit that interference in such matters is warranted where unfairness, arbitrariness and irrationality is established. He submits that this is a clear case of mala fides as well. For all the aforesaid reasons, he submits that the reliefs, as prayed for in this Petition, may be granted to the Petitioner. 18. Mr. D. Pangam, the learned Advocate General submits that the Petitioner has suppressed proper documents in relation to the declaration form as also estimates on the basis of which the estimated costs of the works came to be determined in this matter. 18. Mr. D. Pangam, the learned Advocate General submits that the Petitioner has suppressed proper documents in relation to the declaration form as also estimates on the basis of which the estimated costs of the works came to be determined in this matter. He submits that in fact, incorrect of truncated documents were produced along with the Petition and, therefore, this Petition warrants dismissal, with costs. 19. Mr. Pangam submits that the pleadings with regard to the malafides are totally vague and the persons who are alleged to have acted malafide, have not been impleaded as parties to this Petition by names and in person. He, therefore, submits that the allegations of malafides, which are even, otherwise, false, may be taken into consideration in this Petition. 20. Mr. Pangam submits that the rejection of the Petitioner's bid is clearly consistent with the mandate of the Circular dated 12/11/2007 and since there is no challenge to this circular, the Petition deserves to be dismissed. He relies on Capital Controls India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Goa and ors. - Writ Petition No.290 of 2002 decided on 22nd April, 2003 and submits that this matter is fully covered by the decision in the said case. 21. Mr. Pangam submits that the Petitioner is not entitled to place reliance on internal communications or office notings in the departmental files, particularly since such notings or communications were never addressed or communicated to the Petitioner in accordance with law. He submits that communication of work order is an essential prerequisite for the sake of its enforcement. He points out that the earlier decision accepting the Petitioner's tender or the draft work order made on the basis thereof, was never communicated to the Petitioner and, therefore, the Petitioner cannot claim any rights on the basis of the same. He relies on Bachhittar Singh v/s. State of Punjab and anr., (1963) AIR SC 395 ; State of Bihar and ors. vs. Kripalu Shankar and ors., (1987) 3 SCC 34 and Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority vs. Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society and ors., (2018) 8 SCC 215 in support of this submission. 22. Mr. Pangam submits that the Circular dated 12/11/2007 was rightly made applicable in this case. vs. Kripalu Shankar and ors., (1987) 3 SCC 34 and Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority vs. Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society and ors., (2018) 8 SCC 215 in support of this submission. 22. Mr. Pangam submits that the Circular dated 12/11/2007 was rightly made applicable in this case. In the context of several instances where bids of contractors which were admittedly below 20% of the estimated costs were accepted by the PWD, he submitted that there was no clarity as to whether the estimated costs in such matters were entirely on the basis of open market rates, or not. In any case, Mr. Pangam submits that even if it is assumed that there were some illegalities in acceptance of such bids, the Petitioner cannot claim any equality of illegalities by relying upon Article 14 of the Constitution of India, he submits that on this ground as well, the Petition, as instituted, is required to be dismissed. 23. Mr. Pangam submits that the declaration furnished by Respondent No.7, substantially complies with the prescribed format. He submits that variations are minimal and relate mainly to certain non-essential matters. He, therefore, submits that there was no good reason to reject the tender of Respondent No.7 outright. 24. Finally, Mr. Pangam submits that the scope of judicial review in such matters is extremely limited and since, neither any arbitrariness nor any malafides have been established by the Petitioner, the Petition, as instituted, ought to be dismissed, with costs. He relies on Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1996) AIR SC 11 and Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) AIR SC 393 in support of his submission. 25. Mr. Bhobe, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.7, whilst adopting the submissions of Mr. Pangam, added that there is material on record which establishes that the Petitioner was aware of the Circular dated 12/11/2007. He points out that the Petitioner has himself pleaded that he was a registered contractor with the PWD and has executed several works for the PWD. He points out that in the legal notice addressed on behalf of the Petitioner, reference was made to the Circular dated 12/11/2007. He, therefore, submits that this is not a case where the Petitioner can be permitted to plead any ignorance about the Circular dated 12/11/2007. He points out that in the legal notice addressed on behalf of the Petitioner, reference was made to the Circular dated 12/11/2007. He, therefore, submits that this is not a case where the Petitioner can be permitted to plead any ignorance about the Circular dated 12/11/2007. He submits that public interest will suffer if this Court interferes with the tender process, which is even otherwise extremely fair and not arbitrary, as alleged by the Petitioner. He also relies on Jagdish Mandal (supra) and Mandar Narhari Parab vs. Union of India,MANU/MH/1060/2014 in support of his contentions. 26. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 27. At the very outset, we advert to the issue of suppression, as alleged in this matter. The Petitioner, along with the pleadings, had annexed a format in which the declaration had to be submitted by the bidder. On this basis, it was urged that the declaration furnished by Respondent No.7 was in total variation from the format prescribed. However, in the course of hearing of the matter, it transpired that the format furnished by the Petitioner was not the correct format applicable to the present tender. Upon this being pointed out, Mr. Kakodkar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, explained the circumstances in which such a mistake was made and even tendered apology on behalf of the Petitioner. According to us, though the Petitioner should have been more careful whilst annexing the correct format, this can hardly be regarded as some case of suppression of any vital or material document or a case what the Petitioner intended to deliberately mislead the Court. Based upon such suppression, therefore, no case is made out to non-suit the Petitioner. 28. In the context of the estimates on the basis of which the estimated cost of the works was determined by the Respondents, the Petitioner has placed on record sub-estimates I and V. Upon careful perusal of the same, we agree with Mr. Kakodkar that these were the most important and relevant sub-estimates. Though the Petitioner could have placed remaining sub-estimates as well on record, their nonplacement certainly does not qualify as some serious suppression of any material documents, or particulars. Again, therefore, no case has been made out to non-suit the Petitioner for any alleged suppression of material and vital particulars. 29. Kakodkar that these were the most important and relevant sub-estimates. Though the Petitioner could have placed remaining sub-estimates as well on record, their nonplacement certainly does not qualify as some serious suppression of any material documents, or particulars. Again, therefore, no case has been made out to non-suit the Petitioner for any alleged suppression of material and vital particulars. 29. The main issue in this matter revolves around applicability or otherwise of the Circular dated 12/11/2007 because, it is the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner's bid was rejected by applying the Circular dated 12/112/007 and for no other reasons. 30. In fact, the records in this case clearly bear out that the bid submitted by the Petitioner was the lowest and there is price difference of Rs. 14,32,440.98 as between the Petitioner's bid and the bid submitted by Respondent No.7. It is not the case of any of the Respondents that the Petitioner was not eligible or otherwise not competent to execute the tendered works. It is not even the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner will not be in a position to execute the works within the amount which he has bid. The entire case of the Respondents is based upon the Circular dated 12/11/2007. 31. Since the rejection of the Petitioner's bid, according to the Respondents, is solely based on Circular dated 12/11/2007, it is necessary to transcribe verbatim the Circular dated 12/11/2007. " CIRCULAR In modification to Circular No.1-8-05/SSW-PWD-Vol 1/2007-08/371 dated 16.08.2007 now it has been decided by the Government that tenders pertaining to roads, buildings, water supply and sewerage works quoted more than 20% below the estimated cost put to tender should be rejected. All the Superintending Engineers/Executive Engineers PWD should therefore strictly comply with the above instructions forthwith. This will come in force with immediate effect." 32. The Circular dated 16/8/2007 has been placed on record by the Petitioner, along with his Affidavit-in-rejoinder. This circular, which has been issued by the Principal Chief Engineer, reads as follows : "No.1-8-05/SSW-PWD/VOL I/07-08/571 Government Of Goa, Office of the Principal Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Altinho, Panaji Goa Dated:16/08/2007 C I R C U L A R Sub.: Withdrawal of Circular prohibiting acceptance of Tender quoted more than 20% below Ref.: Circular No. PWD/SSW/F.85/1 (Tech) 2005- 06/6223 Dated 12/08/2005 of the Principal Chief Engineer,PWD. Vide above referred Circular it was enjoined on all the Technical Officers of PWD that tenders pertaining to Roads, Buildings, Water Supply & Sewerage works quoted more than 20% below the estimated cost put to tender 21 should be rejected. Now it is hereby informed that in view of Government instructions the above said Circular issued by the Principal Chief Engineer, PWD and bearing No. PWD/SSW/F-85/I (Tech)2005- 06/625 Dated 12/08/2005 stands withdrawn with immediate effect. S/d (A.M.Wachasundar) PRINCIPAL CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D. Copy to: 1)The Chief Engineer I/II PWD Altinho Panaji Goa". 33. The position which emerges from the reading of the two Circulars dated 16/8/2007 and 12/11/2007 is not quite clear. Circular dated 16/8/2007 purports to withdraw the earlier circular dated 12/8/2005, in terms of which the bids which were found to be more than 20% below the estimated costs put to tender, were to be rejected. Circular dated 12/11/2007 purports to modify the Circular dated 16/8/2007, purporting to perhaps reintroduce the stipulation that the works quoted more than 20% below the estimated costs put to tender, should be rejected. There is no explanation as to the abrupt withdrawal and reintroduction of such stipulations. In any case, we proceed on the basis that the Circular dated 12/11/2007 stipulates that in certain circumstances, the tenders pertaining to roads, buildings, water supply and sewerage works quoted more than 20% below the estimated cost put to tender, should be rejected. 34. Now, admittedly, the stipulation contained in the Circular dated 12/11/2007 was neither a part of the tender, nor is there any material on record to suggest that the same was given any wide publicity. This is relevant because the records suggest that there is no consistency in so far as interpretation of such circulars are concerned and, further such circulars are abruptly withdrawn and reintroduced, without any apparent reason or explanation. 35. Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), was a case were the Petitioner, relying on Circular dated 12/8/2005, which is virtually identical to the Circular dated 12/11/2007, had contended that the bid of the Respondent No.5 in the said case, which was below 20% of the estimated costs, ought to have been rejected. 35. Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), was a case were the Petitioner, relying on Circular dated 12/8/2005, which is virtually identical to the Circular dated 12/11/2007, had contended that the bid of the Respondent No.5 in the said case, which was below 20% of the estimated costs, ought to have been rejected. In the said case, however, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Goa and PWD, had contended that the Circular dated 12/8/2005 is applicable only when the estimated cost is based on GSR and not otherwise. On this basis, the decision in the case of Capital Controls India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was sought to be distinguished by contending that the estimated costs in Capital Controls India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) were prepared entirely on the basis of the GSR. 36. This Court in Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) accepted the stance of the Government that the Circular dated 12/8/2005 will apply only when the estimated cost is prepared on the basis of the GSR and on such basis, rejected the Petitioner's contention therein based entirely on the Circular dated 12/8/2005 which is identical to the Circular dated 12/11/2007, with which we are concerned in this matter. 37. This is evident from what is set out in paragraph 13 in Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which is transcribed below for convenience of reference. "13. In view of Mr. Nadkarni's submission that the judgment of this Court in the case of Capital Controls India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case, it would be appropriate to deal with this submission first. In the said case, tender issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.4 was challenged on the ground that although the offer of the petitioner was the lowest, the tender was allotted to respondent No.4 on the ground that the petitioner's bid was less than the estimated cost by more than 20 % and secondly on the ground that the petitioner's bid was conditional one. The work involved in the said tender was of supply, installation, testing and commissioning of an Electrochlorination System at Curti Treatment Plant of Opa Water 17 Works. It is the case of the respondents that the work involved in the said tender was different from one involved in the present case. In the present case, the work is of electro mechanical nature. It is the case of the respondents that the work involved in the said tender was different from one involved in the present case. In the present case, the work is of electro mechanical nature. It is also the case of the respondents that the applicability of the said Circular dated 2nd March, 2001 which is almost similar to Circular dated 12 th August, 2005, was not in issue and, therefore, the reliance placed by the petitioners on the said Judgment is misplaced. Mr. Kantak, learned Advocate General is justified in placing reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ICICI Bank and another (supra). The decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair and anr. (supra) to contend that the decision is an authority of what it decides and not what can logically be deducted therefrom and the observations in a Judgment should not be read as a ratio. Therefore, we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Nadkarni that the present case is squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court in the case of Capital Controls India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The main question arises for determination is whether the Circular dated 12.8.2005 is applicable to the tender in question. The said Circular reads as under : "No.PWD/SSW/F.85/1/(Tech)/200 5-06/625 Government of Goa, Office of the Suptdg. Surveyor of Works, Public Works Department, 18 Altinho, PanajiGoa. Date : 12/8/2005. C I R C U L A R In continuation to Order No. PWD/SSW/F.200/1/ (Tech)/2005-06/237 dt. 7/6/2005, now it has been decided by the Government that tenders pertaining to Roads, Buildings, Water Supply & Sewerage Works quoted more than 20% below the estimated cost put to tender should be rejected. All the Superintending Engineers/Executive Engineers, P.W.D. should therefore strictly comply with the above instructions forthwith. This will come in force with immediate effect. Sd/- (K.P. Nambiar) PRINCIPAL CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D. Authorised to issued Sd/- (J.N. Chamulkar) Suptdg. Surveyor of Works P.W.D. Copy to : 1. The Secretary (PWD), Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa 2. The Principal Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Altinho-Panaji. 3. The Chief Engineer, I & II, P.W.D., Altinho-Panaji. 4. 26 O.S.D. to the Minister to PWD, Secretariat, PanajiGoa. 5. Office of the Suptdg. Surveyor of Works, PW.D., AltinhoPanaji. 6. Surveyor of Works P.W.D. Copy to : 1. The Secretary (PWD), Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa 2. The Principal Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Altinho-Panaji. 3. The Chief Engineer, I & II, P.W.D., Altinho-Panaji. 4. 26 O.S.D. to the Minister to PWD, Secretariat, PanajiGoa. 5. Office of the Suptdg. Surveyor of Works, PW.D., AltinhoPanaji. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Circle I to IX, P.W.D., Altinho-Panaji." It is the case of respondents No.1 to 4 that the said Circular is applicable only when the estimated cost is worked out on the basis of Goa Schedule of Rates and since in the present matter the 19 estimated cost is not based on Goa Scheduled of Rates, the Circular dated 12.8.2005 is not applicable. It is further the case of respondents No.1 to 4 that admittedly the respondent No.5 is the lowest tenderer and it is not the case of the petitioners themselves that by awarding tender to respondent No.5 for the amount quoted, the work is going to be of substandard nature. But, on the contrary, it is the case of the petitioners that they ought to have been given an opportunity to give better competitive offer. The stand taken by respondents No.1 to 4 that the Circular dated 12.8.2005 is applicable only when the estimated cost is based on Goa Schedule of Rates cannot be said to be illegal, more particularly having regard to the fact that the estimated cost was based on the quotation given by M/s. Electro Mechano Enterprises in which name petitioner No.1 was earlier known. Therefore, having regard to the nature of the work in respect of which tender was floated by respondents No.1 to 4, it cannot be said that the Circular dated 12.8.2005 was applicable and, therefore, the tender submitted by respondent No.5 could not have been accepted by respondents No.1 to 4." [emphasis supplied] 38. Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is, therefore, an authority for the proposition that the circulars, like the Circular dated 12/8/2007, are applicable only where the estimated cost is prepared on the basis of the GSR and not otherwise. Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is, however, not an authority for the proposition that circulars like the Circular dated 12/11/2007 are always or invariably applicable where the estimated costs are partly based on the GSR and partly based on the market rates. Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is, however, not an authority for the proposition that circulars like the Circular dated 12/11/2007 are always or invariably applicable where the estimated costs are partly based on the GSR and partly based on the market rates. In any case, Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is certainly not an authority for the proposition that the circulars, like the Circular dated 12/11/2007, are applicable to a situation where the estimated costs to the extent of almost 70% or 93% are based on the open market rates. 39. In fact, a reasonable understanding of the State Government itself, as reflected in the stance taken in Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the decision therein, suggests that the circulars like the Circular dated 12/11/2007 were not to apply where the estimated costs were predominantly on the basis of the open market rates and were to apply where the estimated costs were predominantly on the basis of the GSR. According to us, this could be the correct reading and understanding, not only of the contentions advanced by the learned Advocate General in the case of Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), but also the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Thus, construed, it is apparent that the Circular dated 12/11/2007 was really not applicable in the present case, particularly since, the record bears out that the estimated costs to the extent of at least 70%, were on the basis of the open market rates. 40. In this matter, there is no dispute that the estimated costs to the extent of almost 70% are based on the open market rates and only estimated costs to the extent of 30% are based upon the GSR. In fact, Mr. Kakodkar submitted calculations which indicate that if the GST component is excluded, which according to him is required to be excluded, the estimated costs to the extent of almost 93% are on the basis of the open market rates. Mr. Pangam has, however, handed in calculations by including the GST rates, and contended that in this case the estimated costs only to the extent of 70% can be said to be on the basis of the open market rates. 41. Mr. Pangam has, however, handed in calculations by including the GST rates, and contended that in this case the estimated costs only to the extent of 70% can be said to be on the basis of the open market rates. 41. At least prima facie we feel that the GST component is not required to be included and, therefore, the estimated costs to the extent of almost 93% are based upon the open market rates. However, for the purpose of the present Petition, we will proceed on the basis that the estimated costs to the extent of almost 70% are based upon the market rates, which position is not even disputed by any of the Respondents. This means, predominantly the estimated costs are based upon the open market rates. In such a situation, the proper reading and understanding of our decisions in Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) makes it clear that the Circular dated 12/11/2007 was inapplicable to this case. 42. The contention of Mr. Pangam and Mr. Bhobe that the Circular dated 12/11/2007 will become applicable even if a small percentage of the estimated costs are based on the GSR, is according to us, a contention too extreme to admit acceptance. This contention will mean that even if the estimated costs, to the extent of hardly 1% are based upon the GSR, the circular will apply. This is neither a correct reading of our decisions in Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), nor Capital Controls India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), nor the stance of the State Government/PWD in said maters. 43. Further, the contemporaneous records in the form of noting of the SE made in June, 2019, his communication dated 24/6/2019 addressed to the Executive Engineer, as also the several instances referred to in paragraph 7 of this Judgment and Order, make it clear that even the State Government and its Public Works Department understood the Circular dated 12/11/2007 as applicable only where the estimated costs were predominantly based upon the GSR and inapplicable where the estimated costs were predominantly based upon the open market rates. 44. From all this, we are quite satisfied that the Circular dated 12/11/2007 was not at all applicable to the facts of the present case, where, the records indicate that the estimated costs were based predominantly on the open market rates. 44. From all this, we are quite satisfied that the Circular dated 12/11/2007 was not at all applicable to the facts of the present case, where, the records indicate that the estimated costs were based predominantly on the open market rates. Therefore, this is a case where the decision makers, purely by way of an afterthought, have chosen to take into account the material which was extraneous and perhaps, deliberately ignored the material which was extremely relevant. The Wednesbury principle is, thus, attracted in this case and the decision making process stands vitiated for all these reasons. 45. Mr. Pangam submits that there is difference in the scope of work in Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the present works. He submits that the present work is in fact comparable to the work in Capital Controls India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). According to him, the decision in Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is, therefore, distinguishable and the decision in Capital Controls India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is required to be followed. 46. Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with the work of augmentation of Salaulim Water Works Phase-I, Electrical-Mechanical supply of 33 KV transformer and vertical turbine pumps. In the present case, we are concerned with the work of augmentation of 40MLD WTP at Podocem; supplying, installation, testing and commissioning of 5 Nos. of 2 MLD pressure filtration plants at Podocem in Poriem Constituency. In addition, there may have certain improvement and maintenance works, as well. Neither the noting, nor the internal correspondence indicates that the decision makers were of the opinion that there is some substantial difference in the scope of the two projects/works. Even, otherwise, we find hardly any significant difference in the scope of the two works in the context of the issue of applicability of the Circular dated 12/11/2007. 47. In fact, the work in the present case is quite similar to the work in Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), particularly when compared to the scope of work in Capital Controls India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In Capital Controls India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with a tender for 'supply, installation, testing and commissioning of an Electrochlorination System at Curti Treatment Plant of Opa Water Works'. Clearly, in Capital Controls India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with the work which was of 'electro mechanical nature' involving mainly supplies. In Capital Controls India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with a tender for 'supply, installation, testing and commissioning of an Electrochlorination System at Curti Treatment Plant of Opa Water Works'. Clearly, in Capital Controls India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with the work which was of 'electro mechanical nature' involving mainly supplies. This is only an additional reason to hold that the issue raised in this Petition is governed by the decision in Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and not Capital Controls India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 48. In this case, we find that the allegations in the Petition mainly concerned the volte face by the SE i.e. Respondent No.4, after a period of almost 7 months from initial decision to accept the bid of the Petitioner. From the records, we find that the SE had given cogent reasons for accepting the bid of the Petitioner in the first instance. However, the communication dated 14/2/2020, which reflects belated volte face, contains to no reasons whatsoever. The volte face, to say the least, was quite strange and does not appear to have backing of either the facts or law. In any case, in such a situation, the minimum that was expected, was that the SE, files an affidavit in response to the allegations made in this Petition. This is because, the SE, who had taken initial decision to accept the Petitioner's tender and thereafter, again it is the SE who has made a belated volte face after 7 months. The affidavit, in response to this Petition, however, has been filed only by the Executive Engineer, who was merely required to act on the basis of the acceptance or rejection of the bids by the SE. 49. Even the affidavit of the Executive Engineer hardly offers any effective response to the allegations in this Petition. No categorical stand is taken that the estimated costs in all the instances referred to in paragraph 7 of this Judgment and Order, were prepared solely on the basis of the open market rates, without any reference whatsoever to the GSR. No categorical stance is taken that the instances referred to in paragraph 7 of this Judgment and Order, were the instances of illegalities committed by the PWD. No categorical stance is taken that the instances referred to in paragraph 7 of this Judgment and Order, were the instances of illegalities committed by the PWD. There is no explanation about the belated change of opinion by the SE, when, in the first instance, the import and impact of the Circular dated 12/11/2007 was squarely considered by the SE and even cogent reasons were given for acceptance of the Petitioner's bid, which was admittedly lowest. In fact, all these matters ought to have been explained by the SE by filing an affidavit in this matter. The affidavit of the Executive Engineer offers no explanations or defences regards this vital aspect of the decision making process. 50. According to us, the material on record is quite adequate to draw a legitimate inference that the Respondents have adopted an unequal yardstick when it comes to the applicability or otherwise of the Circular dated 12/11/2007. There are instances where the circular was abruptly withdrawn and reintroduced. There are several instances where the circular has not been applied to situations which are not demonstrated to be, in any manner, different from the situation in the present case. The decision making process, in the present case is, thus, vitiated by the arbitrariness and practice of discrimination. 51. The record does indicate that the Circular dated 12/11/2007 was invoked selectively and by applying unequal yardstick. This is possibly the reason when the stipulation contained in the circular was never made a part of the tender inviting notice or given any wide publicity before the bids could be submitted. In fact, the decision in Capital Controls India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), upon which a considerable reliance was placed by both, Mr. Pangam, and Mr. Bhobe, though the plea of the State Government based upon similar circular was upheld by this Court, at paragraph 19 of the decision, this is what the Court was constrained to observe : "19. Having said this, we must observe that a condition such as the one stipulated in the Circular dated 2nd March, 2001 ought to be given wider publicity if not mentioned in the tender document itself. The learned Advocate General assured us that he would suggest the same to the concerned Departments." 52. Having said this, we must observe that a condition such as the one stipulated in the Circular dated 2nd March, 2001 ought to be given wider publicity if not mentioned in the tender document itself. The learned Advocate General assured us that he would suggest the same to the concerned Departments." 52. Though the decision in Capital Controls India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was delivered on 22/4/2001, it appears that the State Government has neither chosen to make the stipulation as contained in the Circular dated 12/11/2007, a part of the tender document, nor has any wide publicity been given to such stipulation, so that there is clarity and transparency in the tender process. In such circumstances, the contention of Mr. Kakodkar that non-stipulation or absence of wide publicity is intended to facilitate the selective operation of the circular, cannot be simply ruled out. In any case, we are satisfied that at least, in the facts of the present case, the decision making process was neither transparent, nor fair, particularly when it comes to the belated and unreasoned decision to reject the Petitioner's lowest bid and to accept the bid of Respondent No.7, which was higher by an amount of Rs. 14,32,440. 53. Mr. Bhobe's contention that the Petitioner, who is a registered contractor, has executed several works of the PWD and, therefore, presumed to be aware of the Circular dated 12/11/2007, according to us, cuts both ways. Even if we proceed on the basis that the Petitioner was aware of the Circular dated 12/11/2007, then, we will also have to proceed on the basis that the Petitioner was aware of the manner in which the State Government/PWD was interpreting this circular, particularly to situations where the estimated cost was not exclusively determined on the basis of the GSR. The material on record itself indicates several instances in PWD itself where in respect of works of similar nature bids of below 20% of the estimated costs, were accepted and work orders issued. In fact, this was the basis of the SE's initial notings, followed by the communication dated 24/6/2019 actually informing the Executive Engineer that the bid of the Petitioner stands accepted. The Petitioner certainly had no reason to proceed on the basis that in this particular case, the SE would make volte face after seven months and apply the Circular dated 12/11/2007 selectively. 54. The contention of Mr. The Petitioner certainly had no reason to proceed on the basis that in this particular case, the SE would make volte face after seven months and apply the Circular dated 12/11/2007 selectively. 54. The contention of Mr. Pangam and Mr. Bhobe that there can be no equality of illegalities, is quite sound in principle. However, the facts and circumstances in the present case rule out the applicability of such a principle. This principle was sought to be invoked by Mr. Pangam and Mr. Bhobe in the context of the several instances referred to in paragraph 7 of this Judgment and Order. 55. Now, the return filed by the Executive Engineer no where states that such instances, were the instances of any 'illegalities' committed by the State Government, or the PWD. There is nothing placed on record to indicate that such instances were, at any stage, treated as illegalities and that any action was taken against the errant officers who may have indulged in such illegalities. This was the minimum requirement in facts of the present case, before the State Government could invoke the principle that there can be no equality of illegalities. 56. Apart from the aforesaid, Mr. Pangam has really not been able to demonstrate any illegality in the instances referred to in paragraph 7 of this Judgment and Order or for that matter any illegality in the earlier decision of the SE as reflected in the noting made by him in June, 2019. In the absence of the State establishing such illegality, there is no question of the State invoking the principle that there can be no equality of illegalities. 57. The Circular dated 12/11/2007, by itself, does not state in terms that the same is inapplicable where the estimated costs are based upon the open market rates. However, the State Government/ PWD itself took a stance that such circular will not apply where the estimated cots are based upon the market rates in the case of Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). This stance was accepted by this Court in the said decision. As noted above, the reasonable understanding of the decision in Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), suggests that the circulars, like the Circular dated 12/11/2007, were not to apply where the estimated costs were predominantly based upon the open market rates and were to apply where the estimated costs were predominantly based on the GSR. 58. As noted above, the reasonable understanding of the decision in Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), suggests that the circulars, like the Circular dated 12/11/2007, were not to apply where the estimated costs were predominantly based upon the open market rates and were to apply where the estimated costs were predominantly based on the GSR. 58. Since in the present case the records indicate that the estimated costs were predominantly based upon the open market rates, it is obvious that the Circular dated 12/11/2007 was inapplicable and the SE, in the first instance, was quite justified in taking such a view of the matter. There is, however, no explanation forthcoming in support of belated volte face on the issue of applicability of the Circular dated 12/11/2007. In this peculiar circumstances, we are unable to uphold the contention based upon the principle that there can be no equality of illegalities. 59. No doubt, it is true that mere notings in a file or some internal correspondence in the Department, can afford no cause of action to a party to whom it is not communicated in accordance with law. Therefore, if the Petitioner were to base his Petition on the basis of some nothings or internal correspondence and were to seek a Writ of Mandamus in the nature of a decree of specific performance, surely we would be in no position to accede to such prayers of the Petitioner. However, in the present case, the Petitioner has merely pointed out to the notings and the internal communication in order to let us have insight into the decision making process. In the absence of any affidavit by the primary decision maker i.e. the SE, surely, looking into such notings or the internal correspondence does not fall foul of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions relied upon by Mr. Pangam. We have looked into the notings and the internal correspondence only to evaluate the decision making process, particularly since the SE chose not to file any affidavit in this matter to explain his volte face, after 7 months. 60. Pangam. We have looked into the notings and the internal correspondence only to evaluate the decision making process, particularly since the SE chose not to file any affidavit in this matter to explain his volte face, after 7 months. 60. Tata Cellular (supra) accepts the principle that the decision making process in matters concerning tenders, must be tested not only by application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including several facets pointed out in the said Judgment), but must be free from arbitrariness and not affected by bias or actuated by malafies. In the present case, by applying the Wednesbury principle we find that the decision making process was quite unreasonable inasmuch as relevant considerations were excluded and irrelevant considerations were taken into account. Besides, the decision making process was vitiated by arbitrariness and even lack of transparency. The free play or fair play in the joints, referred to in Tata Cellular (supra) is not to be construed as licence to the administrative authorities to deal with the citizens with an unequal hand, or in an arbitrary manner. 61. In Air India Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has itself held that the State and its agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though the ultimate decision may not be amenable to judicial review, the Courts can examine the decision making process and interfere if the same is found vitiated by illegalities, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. In this case, though the pleadings may not be sufficient to conclude the malafides, the Petitioner has certainly succeeded in making out a case of unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the decision making process. 62. In Jagdish Mandal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that judicial review of administrative action is to be exercised to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, and unreasonableness. The purpose is to check whether choice or decision is lawfully made and not whether the decision is otherwise sound. In this case, we found that the decision making process was vitiated by arbitrariness, illegality and unreasonableness. Therefore, even by applying the restrictive standard of judicial review, interference is clearly warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 63. In this case, we found that the decision making process was vitiated by arbitrariness, illegality and unreasonableness. Therefore, even by applying the restrictive standard of judicial review, interference is clearly warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 63. Raunaq International Ltd.(supra) and Mandar Parab (supra), take the view that the Court must normally, not interfere in matters relating to award of tenders, unless, the Court is satisfied that public interest will not unduly suffer on account of such interference. In the present case, we find that non-interference will be detrimental to public interest. In the first place, non-interference would mean that the State/PWD will unnecessarily spend an additional amount of Rs. 14,32,440 which in the present circumstances, it can ill-afford. Secondly, there is public interest involved in ensuring that the State/PWD adopts a fair and transparent decision making process, which is non-arbitrary, and non-discriminatory. Such insistence will, to a certain extent, eliminate the charges of unfairness and lack of transparency. 64. On the aspect of delay in execution of works, we find that no such case is made out by the Executive Engineer in the returns and such a case is only sought to be made out by the Respondent No.7, who is proposed to be awarded the work despite the fact that his bid was not lowest. The records indicate that the bids were opened in February, 2019 and, thereafter, almost 4-5 months were spent in collecting statistics about the instances where the bids below 20% of the estimated costs were accepted by the PWD itself in last one year. Based upon the statistics so collected, the SE, in fact, took a decision to accept the Petitioner's bid and then issued directions to the Executive Engineer to issue the work order to the Petitioner. 65. Thereafter, for reasons which have not been disclosed to us, for almost 7 months nothing was done in the matter. After 7 months, vide communication dated 14/2/2020, the SE, made the volte face and informed the Executive Engineer that the bid of Respondent was being accepted and the work order may, therefore, be issued in favour of Respondent No.7. In this state of affairs, obviously, no case has been made out that the public interest will suffer if this Court interferes with the decision making process. In this state of affairs, obviously, no case has been made out that the public interest will suffer if this Court interferes with the decision making process. Besides, in this case, there was an interim relief already granted, as a result of which, no work order was actually issued to Respondent No.7 and, consequently, there was no question of any commencement of work by Respondent No.7. Therefore, even by applying the principles laid down in Raunaq International Ltd. (supra) and Mandar Parab (supra), interference is warranted with the decision making process. 66. None of the Respondents in their returns, or in their submissions, have urged that the Petitioner was, in any manner, ineligible to be awarded the works which were tendered. There was neither any contention raised, nor is there any material on record even to suggest that the Petitioner is not in a position to execute the works, if allotted, within the bid amount indicated by him. The State/PWD, will save an amount of Rs. 14,32,440 in case the work order is issued to the Petitioner in terms of the decision of the SE as reflected in the notings of June, 2019 and the communication dated 24/6/2019. The decision making process which led to the belated rejection of the Petitioner's bid or acceptance of the bid of Respondent No.7 is vitiated by unreasonableness and arbitrariness, not to mention, illegality as well. 67. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are satisfied that the decision making process in the present case, warrants interference, even without going into the issue of breach of condition relating to declaration by Respondent No.7. Though we do not deem it necessary to go into the issue, we note that at least prima facie, styling the declaration as 'undertaking' cannot be regarded as some serious breach. There may be something to be said about the absence of verification in the declaration, assuming the responsibility that the statements in the undertaking or the declaration were true and correct. However, we once again make it clear that we are not going into this aspect and we are satisfied that even without going into this aspect, the decision making process, stands vitiated on account of illegality, unfairness and arbitrariness. 68. However, we once again make it clear that we are not going into this aspect and we are satisfied that even without going into this aspect, the decision making process, stands vitiated on account of illegality, unfairness and arbitrariness. 68. As a result, we allow this Writ Petition and make the Rule absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which read as follows : "a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records of Tender No.PWD/D-XXIV/10-4- E/30/2018-19 dated 28.01.2019 pertaining to said work after perusing the same be pleased to quash and set aside the decision of the Respondents No.1 to 6 accepting the tender of the Respondent No.7. b. By writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction the tender of the Petitioner for the said work be ordered to be accepted and the said work be awarded to him." 69. We direct the concerned Respondents to issue work order to the Petitioner at the earliest and, in any case, within a period of four weeks from today. Ordinarily, we may have been inclined to award costs in favour of the Petitioner. However, taking into consideration certain mistakes, though unintentionally committed by the Petitioner in the matter of placing the correct format along with the Petition, we award no costs in favour of the Petitioner. 70. All concerned to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this order. 71. At this stage, Mr. Bhobe, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.7 seeks a stay of the direction, which we have now issued. In the first place, we have granted Respondents No.1 to 6 four weeks' time to issue the work order in favour of the Petitioner. Secondly, it was the case of Respondent No.7 that there is urgency in the matter of execution of this project. For these reasons, we do not deem it appropriate to grant any further stay in the matter.