IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.316 OF 2009 M/s. Gangangiri Developers ... Petitioner Versus Vice President, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and others. ... Respondents Mr. U.P. Warunjikar with Mr. Balasaheb Deshgmukh for the petitioner. Ms. Geeta Shastri, Assistant Government Pleader for the State. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 17TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, (hereinafter referred to as MHADA) on 6th August, 2001 invited tenders for development of certain plots situated at Tilak Nagar, Chembur. They were duly advertised against which the petitioner submitted his tender. Vide letter dated 11th October, 2006, MHADA has rejected the tender of the petitioner on the ground that he had not submitted the requisite information as required relating to income tax (PAN card and income-tax returns). The validity of this letter is questioned in the present petition. 2. We may notice at the very outset that the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have taken objection in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. Admittedly, the petition was lodged in the Registry of this court on 6th January, 2009 while admittedly, the tender was rejected on 11.10.2006. It is stated that legal notice was served by the counsel on behalf of the petitioner. However, the same was served only on 26th May, 2007 and even thereafter considerable time has elapsed in filing of this petition. We do not think that the present petition is bonafide and in any case in the meanwhile equities between the parties have changed because of considerable lapse of time. The petitioner cannot invoke jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in these circumstances. 3. We may also notice that vide letter dated 22nd April, 2004, the petitioner was called upon to submit the income tax return for the years 2001 to 2002 and pan number. According to the petitioner, he had already submitted the same vide his letter dated 15th March, 2004. This is not quite correct in asmuch as by letter dated 1st May, 2004 (Exhibit `N' to the petition) the petitioner himself has stated that they have not got the pan card as yet and only numbers have been alloted to them.This was received in the office of the respondent on 26th May, 2004. The respondents eventually rejected the tender of the petitioner on 11th October, 2006. 4. We do not think any case has been made out for interference by this court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We have also noticed that MHADA has already decided to issue fresh tenders which indeed will subserve the public purpose to which the petitioner can apply. Hence dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.