SANJAY SAYANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner, who claims to be a Freelance Journalist, seeks to challenge the decision taken by the 2nd respondent/authority in its meeting held on 3rd November, 1990 which was communicated to the 5th respondent/contractor by the impugned letter at Exh. "t" dated 20th November, 1990. Under the impugned letter, the 5th respondent/contractor has been informed as under:---

(2.) THE petitioners main objection to the decision dated 3rd November, 1990 taken by respondent No. 2/authority is that in the initial report of M/s. Howe (India) Pvt. Ltd. , who were appointed by the 2nd respondent/authority as the Project Management Consultants for the project in question, certain defects were pointed out. According to the petitioner, the Powai Area is in the seismic zone, which is prone to the risks of earthquakes. The petitioner further contended that in view of the possibility of the quarrying operations in the nearby areas, the technology of pre-fabricated components which were likely to be used by the contractors was not suitable. The petitioner sought to place reliance on certain aspects of the Report of the Project Management Consultants. In the Report dated 25-10-1990, the Project Management Consultants were not able to recommend the acceptance of the tender of the 5th respondent. The petitioner placed strong reliance on the note dated 3rd November, 1990 which appears to be an Office Note prepared on the eve of the meeting of the 2nd respondent/authority, which meeting took place on the 3rd November, 1990. It is true that a perusal of the said Note does show that there were some doubts about the technology of using pre-fabricated components for the Mass Housing Project, at Powai. The note does refer to the Report of another Professional Management Consultant Shri Satish Dhupalia, in respect of the similar technology used by the 5th respondent at the Oshiwara Housing Project of the 2nd respondent, which report is in favour of the 5th respondent. However, in the concluding portion of the said Note, there is a reference to the sub-committee considering the matter afresh on 29-10-1990 and 30-10-1990 and the negotiations held by the sub-committee on the 31st October, 1990 and 1st November, 1990. At the end of the note it has been observed in para 10 as under:---

(3.) MR. Sathe, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that---