Holding

The Supreme Court held that the adoption of the Swiss Challenge Method by MHADA was a valid exercise of executive discretion, not arbitrary, and did not violate Article 14, thereby setting aside the High Court’s order.

Summary

Ravi Development and the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) challenged a Bombay High Court order that had struck down the award of a development contract under the Swiss Challenge Method, alleging arbitrariness, lack of innovativeness and favouritism by the Chief Minister. The Supreme Court examined whether the Swiss Challenge Method, applied on a pilot basis to develop undeveloped MHADA land, complied with Article 14 and was a valid exercise of executive discretion. It found that the method was transparently advertised, that the original proposer was given a right of first refusal, and that no undue influence or favoritism was shown by the Chief Minister. The Court held that the method did not require the proposal to be innovative and that the decision fell within the permissible scope of governmental policy. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment was set aside and the contract award to Ravi Development upheld.

Issues considered

The validity of the Swiss Challenge Method adopted by MHADA on a pilot basis.
Whether the method violated Article 14 of the Constitution by being arbitrary or unreasonable.
Whether the Chief Minister’s involvement amounted to favouritism or bias.
Whether the proposal needed to be innovative for the method to be applicable.
The extent of judicial review over government contract awards.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

Public-Private PartnershipSwiss Challenge MethodGovernment ContractJudicial ReviewArticle 14ArbitrarinessTenderingInnovationPilot ProjectHousing Development

Judgment

[2009] 8 S.C.R. 654
f
A RAVI DEVELOPMENT
v.
SHREE KRISHNA PRATHISTHAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3459 of 2009)

MAY 11, 2009
B
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. AND P. SATHASIVAM, J.] ,~.

Urban Development - Housing - Maharashtra Housing
and Area Development Authority - Joint venture - Public
c Private participation - Swiss Challenge Method - Award of
contract to the initiator of the proposal - Held: Not arbitrary
since the procedure has been followed - Sending proposal
to Chief Minister, who was holding the portfolio of Housing -
Not improper - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14. ,I •

D
Government contracts - Scope of Judicial Review is very
limited - Judicial Review.

Public - Private parlicipation schemes - In order to
encourage the concept it should be duly published first so that
E private entities are aware of such schemes_- To avoid the ill·
effects of unfairness, arbitrariness or ambiguity ce.rlain
suggestions made to the State Government - Suggestions. _.
..
In the present appeals, the common issue involved
F was validity of Swiss Challenge Method adopted by the
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development A!Jthority
(MHADA) on a pilot basis with respect to a proposal
received from a private entrepreneur Mis. Ravi
Developments for development of undeveloped land
owned by MHADA.
G
Allowing the appeals, the Court
~
·-
HELD: 1. It is also seen from the approved order of
the Government of Maharashtra dated 17.05.2007 ttiat
H 654
RAVI DEVELOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA 655
PRATHISTHAN & ORS.

Swiss Challenge Method has to be applied in the area of A
Mira Road land, Kavesar land, Chitalsar Manpada land on
Pilot Project basis and MHADA has to evolve its own
policy for taking decision in future in identical cases. In
f
' those circumstances, requirement of innovativeness is
not there in Swiss Challenge Method, even otherwise, the B
facts of the case clearly show that the proposal of Ravi
Development under the Swiss Challenge Method was a
new innovative venture for MHADA and for State of
Maharashtra. [Para 17] [672-8-E]

2.1. MHADA and the State of Maharashtra placed C
relevant materials which show that at first Ravi
Development submitted their proposal to the Chief
;
~ . Executive Officer, MHADA on 25.08.2006 and thereafter,
to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra on 11.10.2006. It is
clear from the provisions of MHADA Act, 1976, that D
MHADA is an undertaking working under the control and
in coordination with the Housing Department of
Government of Maharashtra. It was explained that Ravi
Development on 25.08.2006 submitted the proposal to the
CEO, MHADA and since no immediate decision was taken E
by MHADA level as the same was new proposal,
therefore, on 11.10.2006 similar proposal was submitted
by them to the Chief Minister of Government of
Maharashtra. The Chief Minister had portfolio of Housing
Department and as per Rules 3 and 12 of Maharashtra F
Government Rules for Conduct of Business, 1975 -
business of the concerned Department of the
Government are transacted by the Cabinet Minister of the
said Department. In those circumstances, there was
nothing wrong in submitting the same proposal to the G
Chief Minister of Maharashtra on 11.10.2006. If there was
no decision by MHADA in respe~t of their proposal dated
25.08.2006, naturally the party concerned viz., Ravi
Development in the normal circumstances could
approach to the higher authorities, in the case on hand, H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

(
A Cabinet Minister of Housing Department (i.e. Chief
Minister of Maharashtra), hence rightly approached the
Chief Minister by submitting the same proposal on
11.10.2006 which cannot be motivated or deemed as
contrary to any of the Government orders. It was pointed
B out that the Chief Minister or Government has not at all
favoured Ravi Development and no order or endorsement
to that effect was either made or reflected anywhere in
the record. On the other hand, the Desk Officer of
Housing Department of Government of Maharashtra, by
C letter dated 20.10.2006, simply forwarded the proposal
submitted by Ravi Development to MHADA thereby
calling upon a detailed report. Pursuant to the said
communication, CEO, MHADA recommended the
proposal of Ravi Development on 04.12.2006 and also
submitted a detailed study report on 24.04.2007 to
0
Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Government of
Maharashtra after examining the merits and derrnnits of
·west Bengal Joint Venture Method' and 'Jaipur Swiss
·Challenge Method' and recommended for following the
Swiss Challenge Method and sought Government's
E approval. It is seen that thereafter, Housing Department
of Government of Maharashtra, by letter dated 17.05.2007,
issued directions to follow Swiss Challenge Method as
recommended by MHADA and also directed MHADA to
take policy decision at its own level for other similar
F proposals in future. It was pointed out that thereafter, by
a letter dated 14.06.2007, in terms of the Ravi
Development's willingness to match the highest bid,
MHADA took a decision on 22.11.2007 to award the said
contract to Ravi Development. In those circumstances
G and in view of the materials placed, particularly, two letters
dated 20.10.2006 and 10.05.2007 issued by the Housing •,
Department of Government of Maharashtra, it is clear that
no favouritism was ever shown to Ravi Development at
the instance of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The
H contrary observations of the High Court are baseless and
}
''
RAVI DEVl::LOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA 657
PRATHISTHAN & ORS.

not warranted. [Para 18] [672-F-H; 673-A-H; 674-A-C] A

2.2. The materials placed by the State and MHADA
show that on receipt of the representation from the Ravi
Development without any endorsement or direction to
consider the case of Ravi Development, the officer B
concerned merely forwarded the same to the Chief
Executive Officer, MHADA to offer their remarks. A perusal
·"'- of the entire documents clearly shows that there was no
attempt either from the authorities of the State of
Maharashtra or from the Chief Minister to favour Ravi
Development. [Para 19] [674-D-F]
c
Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner,
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporatfon and Orhers (2000) 5 SCC
287, referred to.
.... ~-
D
~ 3.1. The legality of Swiss Challenge Method in its
'
entirety is not challenged. Except the land at Mira Road,
in respect of other two remaining properties, no challenge
was ever raised till date by any party. Only after issuance
of public notice in the newspaper to follow Swiss E
Challenge Method, Krishna Pratisthan choose to file
public interest litigation that too only in respect of land
'(
at Mira Road, Thane and admittedly no challenge was
-4 raised in respect of other two properties. [Para 21] [675-
D-F]
F
3.2. MHADA conducted a detailed survey of Public
Private Participation (PPP) options available for carrying
out land developments for construction of better EWS, LIG
and MIG houses at affordable price. In the report dated
24.04.2007, written to the Government, pros and cons of G
-..+ Joint Venture Method and Swiss Challenge Method are
clearly reflected and Swi!?S Challenge Method is
recommended with due application of mind. Therefore,
on that count also, application of Swiss Challenge
Method into present allotment of Mira Road land at Thane H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 8 S.C.R.

A is justified and not violative of Article 14 of the r
Constitution. [Para 23] [676-F-H; 677-A]

3.3. In the Swiss Challenge Method, there is no
provision for allowing other tenderers to raise the bid
further, when "initiator of proposal" accepts to raise up
B
to the highest bid. It was also brought to notice that even
there was no such request by Shree Ostwal Builders Ltd.
after Ravi Development accepting to match highest bid ...
by their letter dated 14.06.2007. [Para 24] [677-B]
c 4. In the matters of Government contract, the scope
for judicial review is very limited and that the Court
cannot substitute its own decision for that of the
government. [Para 25] [677-C]

D Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Air
India v. Cochin International Airport, (2000) 2 SCC 617; State
~ .
of M.P. and Others v. Nandlal Jaiswal and Others, (1986) 4
SCC 566 and 5 M & T Consultants, Secunderabad v. S. Y.
Nawab and Another, (2003) 8 SCC 100, relied on.
E 5. The decision to apply Swiss Challenge Method
clearly fell within the realm of executive discretion and in
this case, exercised after due application of mind. It is
clear from the materials placed before this Court that there
is neither arbitrariness nor unreasonableness in the .. ~

F adoption of the said policy. [Para 26] [678-D-E]

6.1. Recently, there has been shift towards
encouraging private participation in the government
works and promoting of public-private partnership. The
G Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation in its
National Urban Housing Habitat Policy, 2007 specifically
mentions participation of private sector as one of its aims.
It envisages that the State Government and the Central
Government shall act as facilitators and enablers. The
H
RAVI DEVELOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA 659
PRATHISTHAN & ORS.
Maharashtra State Housing Policy dated 23.07.2007 A
provides for private participation. Pursuant to the
declared policy by the Central and State Governments,
the Maharashtra State Housing Board and MHADA are
well within their rights to apply the Swiss Challenge
Method with respect to the MHADA lands that were lying B
undeveloped since the same was being applied only on
trial basis as a method of encouraging private
participation. [Para 27] [678-E-F]

6.2. The State of Maharashtra, after due deliberations
and study of the methodologies prevailing in the country C
for dealing with suo motu development proposals, decided
to apply Swiss Challenge method to the proposal of Ravi

..,,
. . Development. Further, Swiss .Challenge method was
being applied by the State Government only on a pilot
basis. The method is transparent inasmuch as all the D
parties were well aware of the "right of first refusal"
accorded to the "originator of proposal". As per the
method which was known to all the parties the originator
of the proposal must in consideration of his vision and
his initiative be given to the benefit of matching the E
highest bid submitted. The said method is beneficial to
the Government inasmuch as the Government does not
lose any revenue as it is still getting the highest possible
value. Further, in view of financial crunch and availability
of undeveloped lands, National and State Housing F
Policies provide for encouragement of private
participation. The State Government is also well within its
rights to try out on pilot basis a methodology recognized
internationally as well as in India. In those circumstances,
the High Court is not justified in striking out the Swiss G
Challenge Method without allowing the State Government
to exercise its executive discretion on a pilot basis. It is
not possible to reject the claim of State of Maharashtra
and MHADA, in view of shortage of land, increasing cost
H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A in housing sector, the Central and State Governments r
recommended strongly for public private joint ventures
and in the said category Swiss Challenge method is the
acceptable democratic method as compared to other
options. [Para 27] [679-B-H; 680-A]
B
6.3. The slums in urban area are primarily a resultant
of shortage of supply of housing and shortage in supply
of LIGIMIG category of housing. To ensure that the lands
for public housing and metropolis like Mumbai are put to
maximum utilization and maximum tenements are made
C available for families of MIG and LIG categories for which
in the present scenario one of the way outs is joint
venture development by public and private bodies. [Para
28] [680-B]

D Ramanna Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport
Authority of India & Ors. (1979) 2 SCC 489; E.P. Royappa
vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3; Maneka Gandhi vs.
Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 and Erusion Equipment
and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal (1975) 1 SCC
E 70, relied on.

7. The impugned pilot project or initiation taken by
the Government of Maharashtra along with MHADA to
encourage public-private participation is in accordance
with the need of the time as well as a laudable effort. But
F to make it an effective approach Swiss Challenge Method
or any other encouraging concept should be duly
publicized first. The effort of public-private participation
can only be possible when private e'\tities are aware of
such scheme. Also_ in the~'S-cheme of availing a new
G systemJhorough ·rules and regulations are needed to be
followed othe..Wise unfairness, arbitrariness or ambiguity
may creep in. In order to avoid such ill-effects the State
Government is suggested to consider the following
aspects:-
H
'
<'
RAVI DEVELOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA 661
' ;I
PRATHISTHAN & ORS.
1. The State/Authority shall publish in advance the A
nature of Swiss Challenge Method and particulars;

2. Publish the nature of projects that can come under
such method;

3. Mention/notify the authorities to be approached B
with respect to the project plans;
"' 4. Mention/notify the various fields of the projects
..' that can be considered under the method;

5. set rules regarding time limits on the approval of
c
the project and respective bidding;

6. the rules are to be followed after a project has
.... been approved by the respective authorities to be
-- considered under the method; D

7. All persons interested in such developmental
activities should be given equal and sufficient
opportunity to participate in such venture and there
should be healthy inter se competition amongst such E
developers ..

These suggestions are not exhaustive and the State
is free to incorporate any other clauses for transparency
and proper execution of the scheme. The State
Government is suggested to frame regulations/ F
instructions on the above lines and take necessary steps
therea~er in future. [Para 30] [681-A-H; 682-A-B]

Case Law Reference:
(2000) 5 sec 287 referred to Para 13 G
(1994) 6 sec 651 relied on Para 25
(2000) 2 sec 617 relied on Para 25
(1986) 4 sec 566 relied on Para 25 H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 8 S.C.R.
-
A (2003) 8 sec 100 relied on Para 25
(1979) 2 sec 489 relied on Para 27

(1974) 4 sec 3 relied on Para 27

(1978) 1 sec 248 relied on Para 27
B
(1975) 1 sec 10 relied on Para 27

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3459 of 2009.
c From the Judgment & Order dated 27.3.08 of the High
Court of Bombay at Mumbai in PIL No. 72 of 2007.

WITH

D C.A.No. 3460 of 2009, 3461-62 of 2009, 3463-64 of 2009,
3466-67 of 2009.

G.E. Vahanvati, SG, P.P. Rao, Mukul Rohatgi, Pravin H.
Parekh, R. Anand Padmanabhan (for Pramcd Dayal) Kiran
Suri, S.J. Amith, Sahar Bakht, Purushottam, Ustav Sidhu, R.K.
E Adsure, Gopal Balwant Sathe, E.R. Kumar, Rukhmini Bobde,
Subhranshu Padhi (Mis. Parekh & Co.), Shakun Sharma for the
Appellant.

Shyam Diwan, Rakesh Dwivedi, Vishwajit Singh, Ritesh
F Agarwal, Siddharth Sengar, Shantanu Krishna, Abhindra
Maheshwari, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure and Asha Gopalan
Nair for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G P. SATHASIVAM, J. (1) Ravi Development and
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (in short
"MHADA") filed S.L.P.(c) No. 13149 of 2008, S.L.P.(c) Nos.
11229 of 2008 and 11355-11356 of 2008 against the common
order dated 27.03.2008 in W.P. (L) No. 2714 of 2007 with PIL
H
RAVI DEVELOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA 663
PRATHISTHAN & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
~

No. 72 of 2007 of the High Court of Bombay, whereby it was A
held that inviting public tender on 20.05.2007 for development
of the Government lands by invoking the Swiss Challenge
Method with a view to confer preferential treatment to Ravi
Development was wholly unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal
and quashed the contract awarded to Ravi Development. As B
,,... in the impugned judgment, High Court disapproved the Swiss
Challenge Method and accordingly, MHADA had refused to
award the contract to Shree Developers to whom land at
Kavesar, Thane was allotted and Gurukrupa Developers, to
whom land at Chhitalsar Manpada at Thane was allotted, both c
the said developers filed S.l.P.(c) Nos. 21754-21755 & 21756-
21757 of 2008 respectively challenging the very same common
order after getting permission from this Court.
--. \.- (2) Leave granted.
D
(3) The common issue involved in all these appeals
centres around the validity of the Swiss Challenge Method
adopted by the MHADA on a pilot basis with respect to a
proposal received from a private entrepreneur i.e. Ravi
Development for development of undeveloped land owned by E
MHADA.
.,
-,( (4) Brief facts in a nutshell are as under:

Ravi Development submitted a proposal dated 25.08.2006
to the Chief Executive Officer, MHADA for development of F
undeveloped land in Survey No. 126 to 130, 150 (pt.), 151 (pt.)
at Mira Road, District Thane which was received by MHADA
on 31.08.2006. On 11.10.2006, similar proposal was also
submitted by Ravi Development to the Chief Minister of
Government of Maharashtra who was also holding the portfolio G
of Housing. The Desk Officer, Housing Department,
Government of Maharashtra forwarded the aforesaid proposal
received by the office of Chief Minister on 11.10.2006 to
MHADA calling upon a detailed report. On 04.12.2006, the
Chief Executive Officer, MHADA submitted note regarding H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A proposal of Ravi Development to Housing Department of
Government of Mahrashtra. The Chief Executive Officer,
Maharashtra on 24.04.2007 submitted detailed report of West
Bengal Joint Venture Method and Jaipur Swiss Challenge
Method to Housing Department of Government of Maharashtra
s and recommended for Swiss Challenge Method thereby
seeking Government's approval. It was recommended that
proposal received could be advertised under Swiss Challenge
Method on pilot basis. '

(5) The Housing Department of Government of
C Maharashtra approved Swiss Challenge Method on 17.05.2007
and directed MHADA to use the same on pilot project basis
and for other similar proposals in future MHADA should take
policy decision at its own level. Pursuant to the said decision
MHADA issued a public notice on 20.05.2007 for development
D of the land in question and two other lands by Swiss Challenge
Method. In the public notice as well as bid document, it was
specifically stated that Swiss Challenge Method would be
applied. The Swiss Challenge Method was also explained in
the publication as well as if! bid document making it clear that
E the developer, who has given proposal, would have first right
of refusal.

(6) In respect of the land in question, MHADA received four
bids on 11.06.2007, they are: (a) Mis EBR Enterprises; (b) Ml
F s Harshad P. Doshi Associates; (c) Mis Ravi Developments;
and (d) Mis Ostwal Builders Ltd. All the bidders including Mis
Ostwal Builders Ltd. accepted knowledge of initiator of
proposal and following of Swiss Challenge Method and gave
an undertaking to the effect that they are well aware of Swiss
G Challenge Method and that the original proposer shall be given
an opportunity to take up the project on the highest eligible bid
offer. They were also informed that in case the original proposer
agrees to match his bid to the highest offer then the project shall
be awarded in his favour. On 14.06.2007, Ravi Development
H wrote a letter to MHADA accepting to match highest bid
RAVI DEVELOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA 665
PRATHISTHAN & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
~~

amount. While so on 04.09.2007, Shree Krishna Pratisthan A
filed PIL No. 72 of 2007 before the. HiQh Cqyrt of Bombay
challenging the public notice dat~d 20.05.2007 is~y~d by
MHADA Qnly in respect of Mira Road Project and not in respect
of two other projects.
B-
(7) On 22.11.2007, MHADA passed Resolution l'jo. 6284
..r1 of 2007 accepting the bid of Ravi De.yelopmerit and awarded
contract to them for getting constq.ictiqn of 30,000 Sq. Mtr. +
18,841 sq. mtr. (in lieu of rece.ivable arnot.mt) =: 4? 1 ~41 sg. mtr.
After giv!ng undertaking accepting the Swiss Challenge Method
and after participation and having failed in tendering process,
c
M/s Ostwal Builders L,td. filed W.P. (L)' No. 2714 qt f007
challenging the public notice d<1te.d 4Q.Oq.20Q7 (!S W§ll a,s
MHADA's resolution dated 22.11.2007. The High Court of
,.-
\< Bombay, by the impugned common order dated 27.03.2008,
allowed the writ petition holding that Swiss Challenge Method D
itself is arbitrary and unreasonable consequently, struck down
the action taken thereto. Aggrieved by the said order, MHADA,
Ravi Development, Shree Developers and Gurukrupa
Developers filed the above appeals by way of special leave
petitions. E

(8) Heard Mr. G.E. Vahanwati, learned Solicitor General
-'\
-,;, of India for State of Maharashtra and MHADA, Mr. P.P. Rao,
learned senior counsel for Ravi Development, Mr. Mukul
Rohtagi, learned senior counsel for Shree Developers, Mr. P.H. F
Parekh, learned senior counsel for Gurukrupa Developers and
Mr. Shyam Diwan and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior
counsel for the contesting respondents.

(9) Learned Solicitor General for the State and MHADA
G
J/ and learned senior counsel appearing for Ravi Development
r
contended that there was no flaw in applying Swiss Challenge
Method and awarding contract in favour of Ravi Development.
They also submitted that there is no arbitrariness or illegality
in the said contract as concluded by the High Court, on the other
H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A hand, Swiss Challenge Method is followed in many countries
as well as several States in India also. It was also pointed out
that by adopting the said method proper public notice was
issued, all the intending developers offered their bid and
originatgf of proposal was given an opportunity to match the
B highest bid amount and after fulfilling all the formalities the
contract was accepted in favour of Ravi Development. It was
;-.
further submitted that the Government of Maharashtra was, in
no way, suffered any financial loss or sidelined the other
developers in awarding contract in favour of Ravi Development.
c It is their claim that the High Court cannot substitute its decision
in the light of various clauses in the tender documents,
particularly, when the policy decision of the Government is
based upon the expert opinion. On the other hand, learned
senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents
D submitted that in the absence of any innovative method offered
by Ravi Development, application of Swiss Challenge Method
and awarding of contract in their favour cannot be sustained.
They also submitted that the High Court was fully justified in
quashing the public notice and awarding of contract in favour
E of Ravi Development.

(10) We have considered the rival conteAtions ~nd
perused the relevant materials. It was highlighted that the High
Court has gone totally wrong in observing that the proposal of
Ravi Development under Swiss Challenge Method ought to
F have been innovative and since the said proposal was not
innovative, the same should not have been processed under
Swiss Challenge Method. With regard to the said conclusion,
MHADA and the Government of Maharashtra placed materials
to show that the said proposal under Swiss Challenge Method
G by 'originator of proposal' need not be innovative at all and the
said requirement has nowhere been stated under the said
Swiss Challenge Method. According!}{, it was pointed out that
the repeated observations of the High Court to that effect are
unsustainable.
H
RAVI DEVELOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA 667
PRATHISTHAN & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

(11) It is useful to refer the Project details about the A
~qntract pllotted to Ravi Development:

"P!oject Details

1.1. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development
8
Authority (MHADA) established under MHADA Act,
1976 i~ engaged in the activity of housing
qeveloprnent, Konkan Housing and Area
Development Board is a regional unit of MHADA.
An opportunity to private develop land at Mira
Road, District Thane, owned by MHADA, is made C
qvailable.

1.2. Scheme of the Project:

1. The work of Planning, scheme, actual D
construction and for that purpose obtaining
necessary sanctions from various authorities
concerned shall be done by the developer.

2. The area of the said project is approximately
3.55 hectares, bearing survey Nos. 226 to E
230, 150 (part) and 151 (part).

3. The successful developer has to prepare
plans/designs in consultation with MHADA.
F
4. In this project approximately 60% of the flats
should be for Lower Income Group, is
possible.

5. Plans shall have got to be sanctioned by the
Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation. G
.. Save and except the minimum area required
to be handed over to MHADA free of costs,
the developer will be at liberty to sell
remaining area at market price.
H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
v
A 1.3. Details of the Project:

1. Are~ Approximately ~.5p hectares,

2. Area available for construction approximately
70,000 sq. meters.
B
3. The specifications of the flats, which are r-.
required to be handed over to MHADA free
of costs, shall be as directed by MHADA.

c 4. The remaining area, as per sanctions of
Mira-Bhayandar Municipal Corporation, may
be utilized for High Income Group and
Commercial purpose.

1.6. SWISS CHALLENGE METHOD -;\tm
D
1. MHADA has received a Suo Moto proposal
from a developer for development of this
land. The tenders will be received in
response to this advertisement will be
E compared with the proposal given by the
developer (original proposer) to MHADA. As
per the Swiss Challenge method the '
developer who has given the original y

proposal has the opportunity (first right of .
F refusal). However, the said developer has tp
match/raise his bid (rate) with the highest
proposal tendered. The original proposer
shall have the opportunity to take up the
project on highest offer, and in the event if he
G refuses, then the highest bidder shall have
~
right to implement the project.

As such if the original proposer
exercises his right of first refusal then the
project will be offered to the highest bidder. ,'-
H
RAVI DEVELOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA 669
PRATHISTHAN & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

However, if such highest bidder refuses the A
offer then the amount deposited shall be
forfeited."

(12) It was highlighted by the appellants that Swiss
Challenge Method is adopted in Chile, Coasta Rica, Guram
B
(U.S. Territory), Indonesia, Korea, Philippines, South Africa, Sri
Lanka, Taiwan (China), Virginia (U.S.) and also in India by
Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh,
Gujarat, Uttaranchal, Punjab States and Cochin Port authorities.
The above information by way of an assertion shows that Swiss
Challenge Method is already in prevalence in various States c
in India as well as overseas.

(13) The application of Swiss Challenge Method by
MHADA is accused of being not fair and transparent but the
/
\- said contention raised by the respondent as well as concluded D
in the impugned judgment cannot be relied upon as the public
notice for tender dated 20.05.2007 issued by MHADA ·had
clearly mentioned about the said method and the scheme to
be followed under it. Moreover, in the said notice the rule of
"First right to refusal" to the "originator of the proposal" has also E
been discussed accordingly. Though the name of the "originator
of the proposal" may not have been mentioned but it was
contended in the said public notice that "MHADA has received
f" " a suo motu proposal from a developer for development of this
land" pointing out the land marked in the said public notice for F
due development. So it can be concluded that the existence
of the "originator of the proposal" was very much in knowledge
of the other builders at the time of applying for the said bidding.
The relevant portion of the Judgment of this Court in Monarch
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar
G
Municipal Corporation and Others, (2000) 5 SCC 287, which
A
has been relied upon by the High Court in the impugned
judgment reads as under:-

"10. There have been several decisions rendered by this
H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 8 S.C.R.

A Court on the question of tender process, the award of
contract and have evolved several principles in regard to
the same. Ultimately what prevails with the courts in these
matters is that while public interest is paramount there
should be no arbitrariness in the matter of award of contract
B and all participants in the tender process should be treated
alike. We may sum up the leg2l position thus:
}-,
(i) The Government is free to enter into any contract with
citizens but the court may interfere where it acts arbitrarily
or contrary to public interest.
c
(ii) The Government cannot arbitrarily choose any person
it likes for entering into such a relationship or to
discriminate between persons similarly situate.

D (iii) It is open to the Government to reject even the highest ~
~

bid at a tender where such rejection is not arbitrary or
unreasonable or such rejection is in public interest for valid
and good reasons."

We are of the view that the said rejection of the highest bidder
E has been made by following the pre-condition of the acceptance
of the tender already given in the said public notice.

(14) The appellant had provided MHADA in its innovative y
project plan how to balance with highly developed high-rise with ~.

F the low-rise building of lower specifications built up fQr the EWS,
LIG and MIG groups and in that way this project plan was in
accordance with the objective MHADA was looking for as well
as profit sharing mode in a public-private partnership. After
going through this idea, it can be concluded that the contention
G given in t11e impugned judgment of the High Court that there was
dearth of innovativeness and originality in the proposal made }.

by the appellant is wrong on factual ground. Moreover, the
acceptance letter of the appellant to accept the project on the
terms offered by the highest bidder to MHADA was sent on
H 14.06.2007 i.e. much before the filing of PIL No. 72 of 2007 to
RAVI DEVELOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA 671
PRATHISTHAN & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
'-I challenge the public tender. So it can be concluded that failure A
in the said bidding has raised the question of acceptability of
Swiss Challenge Method and not before that when the public
notice was actually published.

(15) It was also pointed out that the tender notice and bid B
documents specify the details about Swiss Challenge Method
without ,nentioning the innovativeness of the proposal, in such
' [-1, circumstances, interference by the High Court under the wrong
assumption of innovativeness as one of the pre-conditions in
the proposal of Ravi Development is totally incorrect.
c
(16) The following materials are culled out from the
information furnished by MHADA and State of Maharashtra.
They ~re:-

At Mira Road, total land available with MHADA is D
" 100286.25 sq.mtr. and out of the same (excluding area of
18969.40 sq.mtr. which went under D. P. Road, Nalla,
amenities, open spaces etc.), near about 46400 sq.mtr.
have been utilized and on the same, construction of merely
17840.23 sq.mtr. is actually carried. Thus, it is a fact that E
with the available subsidy to keep prices of LIG, EWS &
MIG affordable MHADA has to construct low rise structures
, with poor specifications and MHADA was not able to utilize
the potential of the land which is the case in most of the
" MHADA layouts. Further from the year 2001 to 2005 F
MHADA was not able to sale these constructed houses
even at reduced prices & MHADA had same experience
in case of another property at Ambernath, Thane. As
against this, in the present proposal submitted by M/s Ravi
Development on the available balance land of 35500 sq.
G
mtr., construction of 70000 sq.mtr. was proposed with
.J richer specifications. Furthermore, for allowing 0.8 TOR,
~

additional construction 65052.80 sq.mtr. (with the total
share of MHADA to 48841.02 sq.mtr.) will be there on the
said land of 35500 sq.mtr. from that point of view, proposal
H
,'
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A of Ravi Developments can be called as innovative
proposal. Further, though as stated herein above, Swiss
Challenge Method is adopted in various countries outside,
and also in various States in India, but for MHADA and for
State of Maharashtra, this was suggested and applied for
B the first time therefore, it can certainly be called as pilot
innovative proposal of M/s. Ravi Developments.
l>-',
(17) It is also seen from the approved order of the '

Government of Maharashtra dated 17 .05.2007 that Swiss
Challenge Method has to be applied in the area of Mira Road
c land, Kavesar land, Chitalsar Manpada land on Pilot Ptoject
basis and MHADA has to evolve its own policy for taking
decision in future in identical cases. In those circumstances, as
rightly pointed out by Mr. G.E. Vahanwati, learned Solicitor
General appearing for MHADA and Mr. P.P. Rao, learned
D senior counsel for Ravi Development that requirement of
innovativeness is not there in Swiss Challenge Method, even
otherwise, the above mentioned facts clearly show that the
proposal of Ravi Development under the Swiss Challenge
Method was a new innovative venture for MHADA and for State
E of Maharashtra.

(18) The next ground on which the High court interfered with
the decision of MHADA awarding contract for developing Mira
Road in favour of Ravi Development was about the influence )'
'
F of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. With regard to the said
allegation, the MHADA and the State of Maharashtra placed
relevant materials which show that at first Ravi Development
submitted their proposal to the Chief Executive Officer,
MHADA on 25.08.2006 and thereafter, to the Chief Minister of
G Maha1·ashtra on 11.10.2006. It is clear from the provisions of
MHADA Act, 1976, that MHADA is an undertaking working
~
under the control and in coordination with the Housing
Department of Government of Maharashtra. It was explained
that Ravi Development on 25.08.2006 submitted the proposal
to the CEO, MHADA and since no immediate decision was
H
RAVI DEVELOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA 673
PRATHISTHAN & ORS. (P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
"":-;

taken by MHADA level as the same was new proposal, A
therefore, on 11.10.2006 similar proposal was submitted by
them to the Chief Minister of Government of Maharashtra. It was
pointed out that the Chief Minister had portfolio of Housing
Department and as per Rules 3 and 12 of Maharashtra
Government Rules for Conduct of Business, 1975 - business B
of the concerned Department of the Government are transacted
_,1-11!
by the Cabinet Minister of the said Department. In those
circumstances, there was nothing wrong in submitting the same
proposal to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra on 11.10.2006.
As rightly pointed out by Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel, c
if there was no decision by MHADA in respect of their proposal
dated 25.08.2006, naturally the party concerned viz., Ravi
Development in the normal circumstances could approach to
~
the higher authorities, in the case on hand, Cabinet Minister of
/

" Housing Department (i.e. Chief Minister of Maharashtra), hence D
rightly approached the Chief Minister by submitting the same
proposal on 11.10.2006 which cannot be motivated or deemed
as contrary to any of the Government orders. It was pointed out
that the Chief Minister or Government has not at all favoured
Ravi Development and no order or endorsement to that effect
E
was either made or reflected anyw~ere in the record. On the
other hand, the Desk Officer of Housing Department of
A
Government of Maharashtra, by letter dated 20.10.2006, simply
" forwarded the proposal submitted by Ravi Development to
MHADA thereby calling upon a detailed report. Pursuant to the
said communication, CEO, MHADA recommended the F
proposal of Ravi Development on 04.12.2006 and also
submitted a detailed study report on 24.04.2007 to Principal
Secretary, Housing Department, Government of Maharashtra
after examining the merits and demerits of 'West Bengal )oint .
Venture Method' and 'Jaipur Swiss Challenge Method' and G
recommended for following the Swiss Challenge Method and
sought Government's approval. It is seen that thereafter,
Housing Department of Government of Maharashtra, by letter
dated 17.05.2007, issued directions to follow Swiss Challenge
Method as recommended by MHADA and also directed H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
,.. .•
A MHADA to take policy decision at its own level for other similar
proposals in future. It was pointed out that thereafter, by a letter
dated 14.06.2007, in terms of the Ravi Developments
willingness to match the highest bid, MHADA took a decision
on 22.11.2007 to award the said contract to Ravi Development.
B In those circumstances and in view of the materials placed,
particularly, two letters dated 20.10.2006 and 10.05.2007
issued by the Housing Department of Government of ).-,

Maharashtra, it is clear that no favoritism was ever shown to
Ravi Development at the instance of the Chief Minister of
c Maharashtra. We are satisfied that contrary observations of the
High Court are baseless and not warranted.

(19) Apart from the above information and conclusion by
us, it was highlighted that MHADA, as a State Government
Undertaking, works under the control of Housing Department
D of Government of Maharashtra and as per Section 164 of the
..
MHADA Act, 1976, Government could issue instructions if really
had to favour Ravi Development and the same would be
statutorily binding on MHADA. However, the materials placed
by the State and MHADA show that on receipt of the
E representation from the Ravi Development without any
endorsement or direction to consider the case of Ravi
Development, the officer concerned merely forwarded the same
'
to the Chief Executive Officer, MHADA to offer their remarks. y
As rightly pointed out, perusal of the entire documents clearly
F shows that there was no attempt either from the authorities of
the State of Maharashtra or from the Chief Minister to favour
Ravi Development. In such circumstances, the contention of the
.learned Solicitor General appearing for the State and MHADA
is well founded and the contrary conclusion of the High Court
G is liable to be rejected.
(20) In the public notice and bid documents dated
20.05.2007, it was specifically mentioned about the principle
of "initia~or or proposer" and with the said understanding Shree
Oslwal Builders Ltd. has participated in the tender process and
H
RAVI DEVELOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA 675
PRATHISTHAN & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

also gave an undertaking on 11.06.2007 while submitting their A
bid document. The following undertaking submitted by them
which is not in dispute is as follows:-

"We are well aware of Swiss Challenge method and that
the original proposer of the suo moto proposal shall be 8
given opportunity to take up the project on the highest
eligible bid offer. In case the original proposer agrees to
· match his bid to the highest offer then the project shall be
awarded in his favour."

In view of clear undertaking, as rightly pointed out by the State, . C
after participation in tender process and failing in the same
when the contract was awarded to Ravi Development by
MHADA's decision dated 22.11.2007 only at that point of time
i.e. on 11.12.2007 Shree Ostwal Builders filed a writ petition in
the High Court. D

(21) It is relevant to mention that the legality of Swiss
Challenge Method in its entirety is not challenged. Except the
land at Mira Road, in respect of other two remaining properties,
no challenge was ever raised till date by any party. Only after E
issuance of public notice in the newspaper to follow Swiss
Challenge Method, Krishna Pratisthan choose to file public
interest litigation that too only in respect of land at Mira Road,
Thane and admittedly no challenge was raised in respect of
other two properties.
F
(22) It was submitted by the learned Solicitor General
before us that as per the initial tender document, what was
receivable for MHADA was 30,006 sq. mtr. construction (out of
70000 sq.mtr. construction) with 1.2 Floor Space Index (FSI). ·
As per the rules, with the help of Transferable Development G
Rights (TOR), FSI can be extended upto 2 that means 0.8 TOR •
= 65052.80 sq.mtr. can be utilized. For this utilization of 0.8 TOR
i.e. additional construction of 65052.80 sq.mtr.,. MHADA was 1
entitled to receive amount of Rs.2750/- per sq. mtr. which comes
to Rs.17 .89 crores. However, it was pointed out that changing 14'
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A the said terms in the approval order dated 22.11.2007, it is the
assertion of MHADA that it gained more and Ravi Development
had to loose more, as in view of the said amount of Rs.17 .89
crores, Mis Ravi Development was directed to give additional
constructed carpet area of 18841 sq. mtr., whose actual market
B value comes to Rs.60.69 crores. Thus, it was pointed out that
after the said alternate construction of Rs.60.69 crores is
compared to receivable amount of Rs.17.89 crore, then,
MHADA is in fact gaining advantage of Rs.42.80 crores. It was
brought to our notice that all the details are matter of record. In
C those circumstances, it was pointed out that the terms were
altered to the great advantage of MHADA and more dis-
advantage of Ravi Development.

(23) The further particulars furnished by the State of
Maharashtra show that National Housing Policy & Maharashtra
D State Housing Policy promote Public-Private partnership for
construction of EWS (Economically Weaker Section), LIG
(Lower Income Group), MIG (Middle Income Group) Housing.
MHADA is a major player for the same in state of Maharastra.
Subsidy provided is not adequate and MHADA has no control
E on actual quality construction, therefore, MHADA has to
construct low rise and ground floor structures with poor
specifications so as to keep the prices of the EWS, LIG, MIG
houses affordable to masses and FSI of 1.20 is unutilized due
to the low rise structures and poor specifications in almost all
F the layouts of MHADA in Mumbai and in Mumbai Metropolitan
region and MHADA is finding it difficult to sell even these
houses at concessional rates. Therefore, MHADA conducted
a detailed survey of Public Private Participation (PPP) options
available for carrying out land developments for construction of
G better EWS, LIG and MIG houses at affordable price. In the
·report dated 24.04.2007, written to the Government, pros and
cons of Joint Venture Method and Swiss Challenge Method are
clearly reflected and Swiss. Challenge Method is
recommended with due application of mind. Therefore, on that
H count also, application of Swiss Challenge Method into present
RAVI DEVELOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA 677
PRATHISTHAN & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
..... allotment of Mira Road land at Thane is justified and not A
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(24) As pointed out earlier, in the Swiss Challenge Method,
there is no provision for allowing other tenderers to raise the
bid further, when "initiator of proposal" accepts to raise up to B
the highest bid. It was brought to our notice that even there was
no such request by Shree Ostwal Builders Ltd. after Ravi
,11
Development accepting to match highest bid by their letter
dated 14.06.2007.

(25) It is well settled principle that in the matters of c
Government contract, the scope for judicial review is very limited
and that the Court cannot substitute its own decision for that of
the government vide Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994)

-• 6 SCC 651 and Air India vs. Cochin International Airport,
(2000) 2 sec 617. Even as early as in State of M.P. and D
Others vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and Others,. (1986) 4 SCC 566,
this Court held that when the State Government is granting
licence for putting up a new industry, it is not at all necessary
that it should advertise and invite offers for putting up such
industry. The State Government is entitled to negotiate with E
those who have come up with an offer to set up such industry.
In that case, the predominant purpose of the policy decision
dated 30.12.1984 was to ensure construction and setting up
-< of new distilleries with modern technologically advanced plant
and machinery at new sites where there would be no possibility F
of air and water pollution and if for achieving this purpose the
State Government considered the offer of the existing'
contractors and negotiated with them and ultimately decided
to grant to them licences for construction of new distilleries on
the terms and conditions set out in the recommendations of the G
Cabinet Sub-Committee. This method was approved by the
Court and held that the State Government could not be said to
have acted arbitrarily or capriciously in violation of Article 14.
In 5 M & T Consultants, Secunderabad vs. S. Y. Nawab and
Another, (2003) 8 SCC 100, it is worthwhile to refer the following
H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 8 S.C.R.

A conclusion in para 17:

"17 .......... It is by now well settled that non-floating of
tenders or absence of public auction or invitation alone is
no sufficient reason to castigate the move or an action of
B a public authority as either arbitrary or unreasonable or
amounting to mala fide or improper exercise or improper
abuse of power by the authority concerned. Courts have
always leaned in favour of sufficient latitude being left with •
the authorities to adopt their own techniques of
management of projects with concomitant economic
c expediencies depending upon the exigencies of a
situation guided by appropriate financial policy in the best
interests of the authority motivated by public interest as well
in undertaking such ventures ....... "

D (26) The decision to apply Swiss Challenge Method clearly
fell within the realm of executive discretion and in thi:; case,
exercised after due application of mind. It is clear from the
materials placed before us that there is neither arbitrariness nor
unreasonableness in the adoption of the said policy.
E
(27) Recently, there has been shift towards encouraging
private participation in the government works and promoting of
public-private partnership. The Ministry of Housing and Urban
Poverty Alleviation in its National Urban Housing Habitat Policy, ,..
F 2007 specifically mentions participation of private sector as one
of its aims. It envisages that the State Government and the
Central Government shall act as facilitators and enablers. The
Maharashtra State Housing Policy dated 23.07.2007 provides
for private participation. Pursuant to the declared policy by the
Central and State Governments, the Maharashtra State
G Housing Board and MHADA are well within their rights to apply
the Swiss Challenge Method with respect to the MHADA lands
that were lying undeveloped since the same was being applied
only on trial basis as a method of encouraging private
participation. Though an argument was built up by the contesting
H
RAVI DEVELOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA 679
PRATHISTHAN & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

respondents based on Ramanna Dayaram Shetty vs. A
lnt,9mational Airport Authority of India & Ors., (1979) 2 SCC
489, E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3,
Mc neka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, and
1

Erusion Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West
Bengal, (1975) 1 SCC 70, in the light of the stand of the State B
of Maharashtra and MHADA and the materials placed before
,, ,,. us, we are of the view that while holding that there is no doubt
about the principles laid down but they are not helpful to the
case on hand. On th,e other hand, we are satisfied that the State
of Maharashtra, after due deliberations and study of the c
methodologies which is prevailing in the country for dealing with
suo motu development proposals, decided to apply Swiss
Challenge method to the proposal of Ravi Development.
Further, Swiss Challenge method was being applied by the
/ State Government only on a pilot basis. The method is
>(
D
transparent inasmuch as all the parties were well aware of the
''.right of first refusal" accorded to the "originator of proposal".
As per the method which was known to all the parties the
originator of the proposal must in consideration of his vision
and his initiative be given to the benefit of matching the highest
bid submitted. As pointed out earlier, the said method is E
beneficial to the government inasmuch as the government does
.,,'
not loose any revenue as it is still getting the highest possible
_, value. Further, in view of financial crunch and availability of
undeveloped lands, National and State Housing Policies
provide for encouragement of private participation. The State F
Government is also well within its rights to try out on pilot basis
a methodology recognized internationally as well as in India. In
those circumstances, the·High Court is not justified in striking
out the Swiss Challenge Method without allowing the State
Government to exercise its executive discretion on a pilot basis. G
It is not possible to reject the claim of State of Maharashtra and
MHADA, in view of shortage of land, increasing cost in housing
sector, the Central and State Governments recommended
strongly for public private joint ventures and in the said category
Swiss Challenge method is the acceptable democratic method H
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 8 S.C.R.

A as compared to other options.

(28) The slums in urban area are primarily a resultant of
shortage of supply of housing and shortage in supply of LIG/
MIG category of housing. To ensure that the lands for public
housing and metropolis like Mumbai are put to maximum
B
utilization and maximum tenements are made available for
families of MIG and LIG categories for which in the present
scenario one of the way outs is joint venture development by I( '

public and private bodies.
c (29) Due to shortage of land, ever increasing cost, and
maximum utilization of permissible FSI, by adopting public-
private joint ventures, it would be possible to minimize the cost
of LIG, EWS and MIG categories. In the present project, land
is partially developed by MHADA with ground floor structures ,_
D and low rise buildings with lower specifications so as to make )

housing affordable for EWS, LIG and MIG with the subsidies
granted by the Government. The balance FSI cannot be utilized
without high rise buildings which involves higher cost and
expenses. Ravi Development has proposed multi-storied
E building to consume balance FSI with 60% number of
tenements under LIG and EWS category as per OCR 33(5) of
Mira Bhainder Municipal Corporation, which if constructed by
MHADA will require higher cost of construction and subsidies
required to make MIG, LIG houses will be quite high. In the ---
F present project, constructed built up area with richer
specifications is to be handed over by Ravi Development to
MHADA free of costs in tum MHADA will be at liberty to price
these tenements in accordance with policies of MHADA or as
may be determined by MHADA. Therefore, utilization of
G maximum permissible FSI, adopting higher specifications and
effecting utilization of scarce land for housing and yet make LIG,
MIG housing group financially attractive to the people is
possible through joint venture of public and private bodies in
which reasonable built area be available by private developer
free of cost to MHADA. The above claim and concept cannot
H
RAVI DEVELOPMENT v. SHREE KRISHNA 681
PRATHISTHAN & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
~-
be ignored lightly. A

_(30) Lastly, we conclude that the impugned pilot project or
initiation taken by the Government of Maharastra along with
MHADA to encourage public-private participation is in
accordance with the need of the time as well as a laudable 8
effort. But to make it an effective approach Swiss Challenge
Method or any other encouraging concept should be duly
_,,-'f
publicized first. The effort of public-private participation can only
be possible when private entities are aware of such scheme.
Also in the scheme of availing a new system thorough rules and
regulations are needed to be followed otherwise unfairness,
c
arbitrariness or ambiguity may creep in. In order to avoid such
ill-effects the State Government is suggested to consider the
following aspects:-

1. D
" The State/Authority shall publish in advance the
nature of Swiss Challenge Method and particulars;

2. Publish the nature of projects that can come under
such method;
E
3. Mention/notify the authorities to be approached with
respect to the project plans;

_. 4. Mention/notify the various fields of the projects that
can be considered under the method;
F
5. set rules regarding time limits on the approval of the
project and respective bidding:

6. the rules are to be followed after a project has been
approved by the respective authorities to be G
,,. considered under the method.

7. All persons interested in such developmental
activities should be given equal and sufficient
opportunity to participate in such venture and there
should be healthy inter se competition amongst H
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 8 S.C.R.

A such developers.

These suggestions are not exhaustive and the State is free to
incorporate any other clauses for transparency and proper
execution of the scheme. The State Government is suggested
B to frame regulations/instructions on the above lines and take
necessary steps thereafter in future.

(31) In view of the above discussion arid conclusion, the ~ ,
common impugned judgment and order dated 27.03.2008 of
the Bombay High Court in W.P. (l) No. 2714 of 2007 and P.l.L.
C No. 72 of 2007 are set aside. Consequently, the appeals are
allowed. No costs. '

G.N. Appeals allowed.

)