1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.586 OF 2010 Shaikh Gulab Shaikh Abbas ... PETITIONER VERSUS The District Collector, Ahmednagar and others ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for the petitioner Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Shri N.B. Narwade, Advocate for repsondent No.3. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 27th July, 2010 PER COURT ): 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to accept the remaining 75% amount of Rs.19,50,000/-, and prays for further directing the respondents to hand over possession of the sand-strip No.1 from village Mungi in Shevgaon Taluka from Godavari river in the name of the petitioner. 2. It appears that, the petitioner was a successful bidder pursuant to the notice inviting tenders for auction of the sand spot at 2 village Mungi, Taluka Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar. The petitioner had submitted the highest bid i.e. of Rs.26 Lakhs, which came to be accepted on 30.11.2009 and the petitioner had accordingly deposited one fourth of the bid on 30.11.2009. The petitioner states that, thereafter, the petitioner was required to deposit the balance amount i.e. three fourth amount of Rs.26 Lakhs within 15 days of 30.11.2009 and accordingly, when the petitioner had gone to the Tahsil Office for deposit of the same, he was orally informed that on account of the controversy raised by the Grampanchayat, the respondents were not accepting the three fourth amount and the petitioner would be informed subsequently. In order to buttress the aforesaid contention, the petitioner relies upon a communication addressed by him, dated 25.1.2010, in which the petitioner had reiterated the above facts. 3. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply. The respondents have denied that the petitioner had come to the Tahsil Office for deposit of the balance three fourth amount and state that, as the petitioner did not deposit the balance amount, the contract was not awarded to the petitioner. 4. This petition, therefore, raised a disputed question of fact as to whether the petitioner had actually gone for deposit of the said amount. No doubt the petitioner relies upon the communication dated 3 25.1.2010. However, the aforesaid communication is practically after a period of two months of the contract when the petitioner ought to have deposited the balance amount. We, therefore, find that, even on the test of probabilities, the petitioner has not been able to make out and probabalise his case that he had gone to the Tahsil Office for deposit of the balance amount of the bid and the respondents had not accepted the said amount. Since disputed questions of fact ar raised, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, according to us, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Even otherwise, the period of contract was till 30.7.2010, which is virtually coming to an end. This Court obviously is not competent even by a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to enter into a fresh contract with the petitioner for some other period. In that light of the matter, therefore, we dismiss the petition. However, we direct the respondents to refund the one fourth amount which the petitioner has deposited, within four weeks from today. Failure to refund the said amount within four weeks would entail the payment of interest @ 8% p.a. by the respondents from the date on which the amount became payable till the amount is actually paid. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.) fmp/wp586.10