WP No. 3793/09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3793 OF 2009 Jai Ambika Maschimar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Gaundgaon, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded Through its Chairman Shri. Ambadas s/o. Shankarrao Dubukwad, R/o. Goundgaon, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Milk, Animal Husbandary and Fishery Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others. ....Respondents. Mr. G. D. Kale, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for respondent No. 4. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 7th September, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. The petitioner claims that it filed an application on 30.5.2008 for participating in tender process of allotment of fishery tank. It is the allegation of the petitioner that in spite of petitioner's application being there on record, respondent No. 2 accepted the application of respondent No. 4 and granted the same. 2. Affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The relevant paragraph is quoted below :- WP No. 3793/09 2 "I say that, accordingly the Government under its order dated 4.7.2008 granted the Upper Manar Tank to Respondent No. 4 society. I say that, as per the Government decision the Regional Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries, Aurangabad issued Talav Theka sanction order dated 22.7.2008 in favour of respondent No. 4." 3. Mr. S.K. Kadam, learned A.G.P. submits that the petitioner has failed to place on record convincing evidence in respect of its application being on record while the respondents considered the application of respondent No. 4. It is contended in the reply that meeting for Talav Theka was held on 30th May 2008 whereas the petitioner's society submitted demand application along with its registration certificate on 2.6.2008. The decision had already been taken on 30th May 2008 to allot Talav Theka to the respondent No. 4. 4. In the light of facts of this case and as the petitioner failed to bring on record convincing evidence in respect of it's contentions, no interference is warranted in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Petition is dismissed. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/wp3793/09