1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4840 OF 2009 Hari Om Multi Services through its Proprietor Limbaji S/o.Tukaram Naik PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS Mr.P.N.Kalani, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.V.B.Ghadge, learned AGP for respondents. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 27/07/2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the tender notice published by respondent no.2 on 10/07/2009 in respect of supply of security services for General Hospital, Parbhani. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ directing respondent no.2 to continue the security services provided by the petitioner as per the initial work order dated 31/03/2009 till the completion of one year i.e. 31/03/2010. 2 2. It appears that the petitioner, pursuant to a tender notice published by the respondents, submitted his tender to the respondent no.2 for supply of security services in the General Hospital, Parbhani for one year i.e. from 1st April 2008 to 31st March 2009. It also appears that work order came to be issued in respect of supply of security services for the General Hospital at Parbhani for the year 2008-09 on 27/05/2008. Thereafter a letter came to be issued to respondent no.2 by the 4th respondent for issuance of the work order to respondent no.3. Accordingly, respondent no.2 issued work order in favour of the petitioner for the security services for the period of one year i.e. 1st April 2008 to 31st March 2009. Extension was granted to the petitioner for a period of 2 months and thereafter an extension came to be granted for period of one month. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite acceptance of tender of the petitioner, the petitioner has not been issued the work order for the entire year i.e. from 1st April 2008 to 31st March 2009. Petitioner was unable to point out to us any provision by which the respondents are prohibited from issuing the advertisement. The petitioner had accepted the said work order and the continuation orders without demur and therefore it would not be open for the petitioner to agitate that he had not been able to work for a period of one year pertaining to the said work order. The petitioner has various remedies available in Law which the petitioner may resort to. The work order was issued and the last date for acceptance of the tender as per the said tender notice was 21st July 3 2009 and the sealed tenders were to be opened on 22nd July 2009. The petitioner has filed this petition on 28th July 2009. In the light of all these subsequent events we are not inclined to interfere also. Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/JULY 2009/wp4840-09