- (1.) This writ petition, in the nature of public interest litigation, has been filed by a practicing Advocate of this Court for the following reliefs: "(a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing or setting aside the decisions taken in furtherance of the tender notice dated 1.8.2009, contained in Annexure No.1 and all consequential orders passed thereto; "(b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to award any tender in furtherance of tender notice dated 1.8.2009; "(c) issue the process of award of largess on the basis of policy which is fair and transparent so as to provide equal opportunity to all tenderers eligible to participate in the tender; "(d) pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present petition."
(2.) An objection has been raised by Sri Jai Deep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of U.P. Jal Nigam assisted by Sri IP. Singh that the petition is not maintainable as (i) this petition has been filed by an Advocate who is not supposed to file a petition in respect of tender process, (ii) tender process had been the subject matter of challenge by interested companies in Writ Petition No. 8295 (MB) of 2009 wherein also some of the pleas as have been raised in the instant writ petition, had been raised but did not find favour by the Court and the petition was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2009 and therefore, the same grounds cannot be agitated in the present petition in the nature of public interest litigation, (iii) the petition appears to be a proxy petition as it does not disclose the very source that from where the petitioner has got knowledge about the developments which have taken place after publishing the tender notice and different companies applied in pursuance of the said notice and lastly it has been submitted that the public interest litigation, in the facts and circumstances, is not at all maintainable.
(3.) Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner is a public spirited person and simply because he is a lawyer, it does not debar him from filing a petition in the nature of public interest litigation which if decided would control the unfairness in the matter of award of contract. Further submission is that ignoring the civic amenities, which should have been given top priority, the U.P. Jal Nigam is going to award the contract at a much higher rates which is not in public interest. His submission is that whenever the matter is brought to the Court, credentials of the persons who brings the cause, the genuineness of the cause and the gravity thereof has to be considered by the Court and if the Court is satisfied that it is a matter of public interest and the grievance raised is genuine, the matter should be considered and the petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has no locus-standi to come to the Court.;