-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4724 OF 2008 Mukund Shinde, Proprietor of New Bombay ) Electricals ).. Petitioner Versus City & Industrial Development Corporation ) and others ).. Respondents Mr Vaibhav Sugdare for the Petitioner. Mr G.S. Hegde a/w C.M. Lokesh i/b G.S. Hegde & Associates for Respondent No.1. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. & A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 18TH JULY 2008. P.C. In the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner prays for issuance of a direction to the Respondents for calling for the records in respect of the tender bearing No. C.A. No.CIDCO/EE(Elect-S/2007-08/53 relating to shifting of 22KV over-head line of MSEDCL at the proposed road widening at Kalamboli node and the same be quashed and set aside. It is also prayed that they also be restrained by interim order even from finalising -2- the said contract. A prayer has also been made for a direction to the Respondents to issue tender to the Petitioner. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 has stated that for the present tender, date for submission was May 2008, which has long expired and the matter thereafter has proceeded. Furthermore, it is stated that the present Petitioner was awarded the work earlier in regard to electrification which he did not perform and after issuing him notice, the work order was cancelled. 3. Be that as it may, we do not propose to issue notice in this Writ Petition nor grant any relief to the Petitioner. Suffice it to say that the Petitioner has not submitted the tender in response to this particular tender. A prayer has also been made for a direction to the Respondents to issue tender to the Petitioner. We see no reason to in any way reverse the process of inviting of tender and pass any directions in this regard. The Petitioner ought to have been more vigilant about his rights. 4. The present Petition is more academic and it will neither be -3- appropriate for this Court to examine merits of this case nor it would be in the larger interest of the public that if the Court interferes with the process of grant of contract, when the last date for submission of the tender is over long back. The Petitioner is at liberty to approach the Respondents in the future. 5. Writ Petition dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE A. P. DESHPANDE, J.