1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 48 OF 2009 Ganesh Murlidhar Mahale ...Petitioner Versus Government of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Tushar Bhavsar with Mr.Viral Shukla i/by M/s. Shukla & Associates for the Petitioner Mr. J. Saluja, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent No. 1 Mr. Y. Divekar i/by M/s. Divekar & Co. for Respondent No. 3 Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Counsel, with Mr. Vipul Shukla, Mr. Akhilesh Dubey and Mr. Rahul Sharma i/by M/s. T.N. Tripathi & Co. for Respondent No. 4. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO AND R.V. MORE, JJ. DATE: JUNE 16, 2010 P.C.:- The petitioner has approached this Court, contending that respondents No. 4 and 5 had purchased the equity shares of respondent No. 2 to the extent of 92% for a sum f Rs.5.04 crores. 2 The original bid was for the sum of Rs. 4.98 crores. There were three public advertisements, and the last bid was way back in July, 2005. There were altogether 9 bidders, of which respondents No. 4 and 5 were two of the bidders. 2. The case of the petitioner here is that the property was handed over to respondents No. 4 and 5 some time in 2008, whereupon immediately, respondents No. 4 and 5 entered into an agreement to sell the plant and machinery for a consideration of Rs. 8.13 crores. It is, thus, the contention of the petitioner that the property was grossly under-valued, and, in these circumstances, the Court should interfere in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. 3. Respondents No. 4 and 5 have put in their appearances, and filed their replies. Appearances are also put in on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3, who have filed their replies. They dispute the contention of the petitioner as to the valuation of the property. 3 4. The petition is based on the fact that the property was agreed to be sold for a higher amount than what respondents No.4 and 5 had purchased the equity shares for. Respondents No. 4 and 5 filed a reply. Though they had earlier entered into an Agreement, that Agreement did not fructify. In other words, what the petitioner is now calling upon us to do is to interfere, in the exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction, on the basis of a failed bid between respondents No. 4 and 5 and their buyers. 5. In our opinion, when we see the facts on record, this would not be a fit case where this Court should exercise its extra- ordinary Jurisdiction. The property is situated at Nanded. The petitioner is a resident of Mumbai. This, by itself, indicates that there is more to it than that appears in the bonafides of the petitioner. In the light of that, nothing survives in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) 4 (R.V. MORE, J.)