The directions came following a writ petition filed by Jai Hind Contractors and J M Mhatre and Company, challenging the awarding of the tender to JP and Company. The road is a part of the Khargar hydro-electric project. The total length of the road is 4.8 kilometers and work has been divided into five segments, each 900 meters. The total cost of the project is Rs 4.5 crore.

In December 1998, tenders were invited and nine contractors purchased tenders forms from the Superintending Engineer in Nashik. Eight engineers submitted the forms on the February 22, 1999, the last date for tenders. According to the petition, seven contractors were confronted by anti-social elements allegedly hired by J P and Company and were physically prevented,threatened and forced to submit rates higher by 20 to 30 percent than the estimated costs.

The seven contractors then submitted their rates as directed by the anti-social elements and later submitted a written complaint to the SE, narrating the sequence of events and also called for the recalling of tenders. The SE then opened the tenders and disqualified three contractors on technical grounds and out of the remaining five, awarded the contract to JP and Company who quoted the lowest. However, no work order was issued to JP and Company, as the petitioners till then had moved the court who directed the SE not to issue a work order.

Government pleader, P C Kansara, told the court that the SE tried to justify the merits of the case, while counsel for JP and Company, YS Jaghirdar, submitted that the petitions are a part of a deep-rooted conspiracy hatched by the unsuccessful contractors.

Justice Ashok Agarwal and D K Deshmukh then directed the SE to re-invite fresh tenders from the nine contractors who hadearlier purchased the relevant documents. The court also pointed out that the tenders will be opened in the presence of the district collector and if needed the collector, and take the help of the local police. The court said that the conduct of the SE in opening the tenders soon after receiving the complaint was not proper. Instead, the SE should have made an enquiry before proceeding with the case, the court observed.