1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3812 OF 2009 Ranganath Kisan Karanjkar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. M.S. Karnik for the Petitioner Mrs. M.P. Thakur, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE: APRIL 22, 2009 P.C.:- The petitioner was allotted a contract of collecting sand. A third party filed a Writ Petition in this Court, and obtained stay. That petition, finally, came to be dismissed as withdrawn. In between, the petitioner could not work for 217 days, because of the order of the Court being operative. He filed a Writ Petition in this Court, seeking direction that his contract should be extended by 217 days, as he lost 217 days of the contract because of the order of the Court. This Court disposed of the petition vide Order dated 19th January, 2009, 2 gave the petitioner liberty to file a representation, and directed the respondents to decide the representation. 2. Now, it appears that the representation has been decided, and the petitioner is aggrieved of the order passed on 7th March, 2009. By this order, the authorities have held that the petitioner would be entitled to refund of the licence amount proportionate to the loss of the work of 217 days. This is in accordance with the terms in the tender notice and the agreement. 3. Even otherwise, this equitable arrangement having been made by the respondents, in such circumstances, the relief claimed by the petitioner that his contract be extended by 217 days cannot be granted. Petition is dismissed. 4. If the petitioner has any grievance against the party, who had moved the Court and obtained stay, he is at liberty to take any step that may be available in law. BILAL NAZKI, J. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.