1 wp1447.11.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1447 OF 2011 Nareshkumar N. Adnani ....Petitioner. Vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. J. P. Sen a/w Ms. Kavita Shah i/by Mr. Arvind Shah for the Petitioner. Mr. Shailesh C. Naidu a/w Mr. Yogesh C. Naidu and Mr. Sridhar K. Chari i/by M/s. M.V. Kini & Co. for Respondent No.1. CORAM :- D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :- 22 SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. :- The Respondent No.1 consciously took a decision in July, 2010 that Respondent No.1 is to be given order for one unit and after watching performance of that unit in case that performance is found to be satisfactory, an order for second unit will be given. The Petitioner did not challenge that order immediately and waited till almost for one year. Now, the Petitioner claims that as the tender was invited for two sets and as the performance of the Petitioner’s unit was 2 wp1447.11.sxw ssm satisfactory, at least order for one set should be given to the Petitioner. In our opinion, the grievance of the Petitioner cannot be entertained because the decision of the Corporation was of giving order of one unit to the Respondent initially. The performance of that unit was to be watched for one whole year and if the performance is found to be satisfactory then an order for the second unit was to be placed. It was a composite order. If the Petitioner wanted to challenge it, the challenge should have been made immediately after the order was made. Now, after having permitted the Corporation to implement their scheme at this stage, it cannot be permitted to be challenged. 2 The Petition is rejected. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)