{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10604 OF 2010 Rajesh s/o Pandit Patil Petitioner Versus The Commissioner, Fisheries Department, State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr. R.M.Patil, advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G.Patil, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 5. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 22 nd November, 2010 PER COURT: 1 By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the award of contract for fetching rights in Anjani Medium Project Reservoir, Taluka Erandol, in favour of Respondent No.11. 2 It is the contention of the petitioner that though the Respondent No.11 had given a bid only for Rs.One lac fifty one thousand fifty one, he was permitted to correct it to make as Rs.15,15,151.51. It is the contention of the petitioner that such an {2} unilateral act on behalf of the Respondent-authorities in permitting only Respondent No.11 to correct his bid is not permissible in law. 3 From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that in the bid submitted by Respondent No.11, in figures, he has correctly mentioned the amount of Rs.Fifteen lacs and odd. However, it appears that, by mistake, in words the amount is written as Rs.One lac fiftyone thousand fifty one. 4 The petitioner has submitted his bid for Rs.9,00,000/-. On a pertinent query to the petitioner as to whether he is willing to offer an amount more than Rs.Fifteen lacs fiftyone thousand, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would like to consult his family members and then make a statement in that regard. 5 It prima facie appears that there was a mistake committed by Respondent No.11 in writing the amount in words, however, he has correctly mentioned the figure as Rs.15,15,151/-. Undisputedly, the highest bid is for Rs.15,15,151/-. The second highest bid is that of the petitioner i.e. for Rs.9,00,000/-. As such, there is difference of more than Rs.6,51,000/-. In that view of the matter, we do not find that any loss would cause to the public exchequer by acceptance of bid of Respondent No.11. {3} 6 In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. 7 Writ Petition stands rejected. R.M.BORDE B.R.GAVAI JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp1060410