IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR [WRIT PETITION NO.4669/2007 ] [Syed Khaja Gausuddin ..vs.. City of Nagpur Corporation] ================================== Mr. M.P. Lala, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.K.Mishra, for respondents ================================== CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & P.B. VARALE,JJ. DATE: 16TH DECEMBER, 2008. The petitioner by this petition challenges the action of the respondents – corporation of not opening the tender submitted by the petitioner on the ground that he does not fulfill eligibility criteria. The work for which the tenders were invited was for making public gardens at 2 places in the city. Necessary condition was that the person who is submitting the tender must have done similar work for the government or for semi-government organization in excess of rupees two lacks and rupees one lack. So far as the first work is concerned, the petitioner's tender was not opened on the ground that the work that he had done for the corporation and on which he was relying though was valued in excess of rupees two lacks, the petitioner had submitted tender 18% below tender rate, therefore, the value of the work was below rupees two lacks and for these reasons his tender was not opened. We find that the reason that has been given by the corporation for not opening the tender of the petitioner is relevant and possible. In our opinion, even assuming that the tender submitted by the petitioner was wrongly not opened, it was open for the petitioner to claim damages against the corporation for not opening his tender, because denying contract to the petitioner may result in loss of business to him. But what has happened is that the petitioner has approached this court by filing this petition. He has made vague allegations of malice against respondent no.5 who is Garden Superintendent and has secured interim order, as a result of which the work has not been allotted right from October 2007. It is obvious that considering the nature of work and the reason that has been given by the corporation the petition could not have been entertained as his appropriate remedy was to file a suit for damages. Petition of the petitioner is liable to be rejected, but because of this petition the public has been deprived of the advantage of a well maintained garden for about an year, in our opinion therefore, while rejecting the petition in limine costs should be imposed on the petitioner. Petition is rejected. Petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs to the corporation. JUDGE JUDGE smp.