1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4231 OF 1997 M/s Raj-Jeet Industries Plot No. 97-C, Industrial Estate Nanded, through the proprietor H.G.Amilkanthwar, Age : 64 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o : Vidya Bhavan, Vazirabad, Nanded. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The Union of India Through its Standing Counsel High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. 2. The Chief Engineer Central Public Works Department, Govt. of India for Maharashtra State, NCC, P.W.D., Nagpur. 3. The Superintendent Engineer NCC, CPWD, Nagpur. 4. The Executive Engineer Nanded Central Division CPWD, Nanded. 5. Pradeep Chadda CPWD Colony, Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS 2 Mr. A.G.Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.R.G.Deo, Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 21/6/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER - B.R. GAVAI, J. ] 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has sought a writ directing the respondents to accept the tender of the petitioner for the work advertised by respondent nos. 2 to 4. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was more suitable and qualified to be awarded the tender than respondent no. 5. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the petitioner’s unit situated at Nanded was much closer to the site than respondent no. 5 , whose Unit is at Nagpur. 3. The tender in question is awarded in the year 1997. This Court vide Order dated 9/2/1998 has specifically observed that it is not possible for this Court to grant any temporary relief to the petitioner. Though, while granting Rule vide Order dated 12/11/1998, this Court has observed that, “ To be considered only for the purposes of damages ” , we are not inclined to go into that aspect of the matter. The Apex Court in the case of D.L.F. Housing Construction ( P ) Ltd. V/s Delhi Municipal Corporation and others reported 3 in AIR 1976 Supreme Court – 386 has held that where the disputed questions of fact are involved and where it is necessary to go into the detailed evidence before deciding the matter, this Court would be slow in entertaining such petition in the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Same view of the Apex Court has been reiterated in various Judgments. 4. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition in the extra ordinary jurisdiction for ascertaining the claim of the petitioner regarding alleged damages sustained by him. 5. The petitioner if entitled to raise the same claim, would do so in accordance with law in appropriate proceedings. The petition is disposed of as such. Rule is discharged. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 4231.97