 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 967/2009 (M/s neha Construction vs. Supdt. Engineer, EHV Amravati and another) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... CORAM: D.D.SINHA & A. P. BHANGALE , JJ. DATED: 04th March, 2009. *** 1. Heard Shri V G Wankhede, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Respondents issued the tender notice dated 9.2.2009, whereby bids were invited from eligible local dealers for executing the work of erection of 10.00 Km. 220 KV LILO D/C line on D/C Tower on 220 KV Wardha-Badnera line for evacuation of power from PGCIL's 765 KV sub- station at Deoli Dist. Wardha. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that on earlier occasion, the Respondents had floated tender for the said purpose and the petitioner submitted his tender pursuant to the said tender notice. It is contended that the petitioner was the only eligible tenderer who even otherwise, was fulfilling the conditions of tender and, therefore, the Respondents ought to have accepted the bid submitted by the petitioner.  3. It is not in dispute that the bid given by the petitioner was 92 % on and above the estimated cost of the work. Even otherwise in order to have a wider competition, it is always expedient to invite bids from eligible local bidders and, therefore, the floating of fresh tender by the Respondents in order to attract more bidders, in our view, cannot be said to be bad in law. It is always open to the petitioner to participate in the fresh process. 4. In the circumstances, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare