1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10362 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10362 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Mr. M. S. Deshmukh for Plaintiff/ petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. M. V. Ghatge for Applicant in Civil Application NO.16942 of 2010 and Advocate Shri R. R. Karpe for Applicant in Civil Application NO.18370 of 2010. 2. In a tender proceeding, the Collector extended the last date for submission of tenders and petitioner/ plaintiff, who had filed his tender document, well within time, filed civil suit. He contended that not only last date was extended but the tender forms were also made available to fresh bidders in view of such extension and Collector lacked this power. The extension to submit the valid tenders could have been only before expiry of last date and any modifcation or amendment could also have been before that 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10362 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. date. After that date Collector becomes functus officio. Learned counsel states that after expiry of last date here, the time to submit tenders was extended and not only that, fresh tender forms were also sold. He states that some persons purchased tender forms after such extension and submitted their offers. According to him, in the process the bids offered by petitioner or others may have been communicated to those persons and hence the exercise is not in public interest. In any case, according to learned counsel, if fresh bids were permitted, same opportunity should have been given to the Petitioner also. 3. Advocate Karpe for Applicant in Civil Application No.18370 of 2010 has supported the arguments of learned counsel for Petitioner. He points out specific averments on affidavit in his application that the bids submitted may have become known to other 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10362 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. bidder and hence re-sale of tender forms and its acceptance after last date has vitiated the process. According to him, therefore, consideration of the matter needs to be restricted to original last date as fixed by Respondent No.1 Collector. 4. Advocate Shri Ghatge as also learned A.G.P., however, support the impugned order. According to them, the Collector took a policy decision which was made known to all and by a public process, fresh offers were invited. Attention is invited to stipulation in advertisement by which earlier tenderers were not precluded from participating again but then they were informed that their offers already furnished will also be looked into. According to them, there is no jurisdictional error or perversity. 5. The trial Court has rejected the prayer for temporary injunction made by petitioner/ plaintiff and Appellate Court has maintained 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10362 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. it. 6. The tender is for running SETU center. The petitioner/ plaintiff is trying to obtain specific performance of the tender as earlier published. It is not in dispute that Collector has been authorised to extend last date. Contention is that decision could have been taken by him before expiry of such last date and decision taken thereafter is not valid. 7. The suit is based only on apprehension that the offers submitted by the petitioner/ intervenor in Civil Application No.18370 of 2010 may have become known to every body. 8. The controversy is concurrently gone into by both the Courts. I do not notice any jurisdictional error or perversity. In any case, the petitioner/ plaintiff can always seek compensation if he proves his entitlement to damages in accordance with law. Hence, at this stage, I am not inclined 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10362 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. to interfere in contractual matters. In view of this, though civil applications for intervention are allowed, petition is rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:17/01/2011. ans/10362