WP 8944/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8944/2011 Ajanta Press and Mechanical Works through proprietor V/s The State & others. _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri Anand V. Patil Indrale, Advocate for petitioner. Shri P.P. More, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri N.B. Khandare, Advocate with Shri Sachin Deshmukh and Shri Tejesh Dande, Advocates for respondent no.3. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date: 14.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the tender process on the ground that the process as conducted by the respondent nos.1 & 2 is only to favour the respondent no.3. Noticing the grievance of the petitioner, we had issued notice and also granted interim relief directing the work not to be allotted. However, from the perusal of the reply, it would reveal that various conditions have not been fulfilled by the petitioner. WP 8944/11 2 Though it is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reply is incorrect, undisputedly at least following two conditions have not been complied with: [1] Sample Chulha has not been submitted at the time of tender. [2] Information that on earlier occasion, he had approved or supplied improved Chulhas under Rural Development Department under Indira Awas Yojana, has been incorrectly given. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is done by mistake. When a party submits his bid, he is required to go through the tender document completely and not commit any mistake. In any case, he has to thank himself for committing such mistake/s. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (M.T. Joshi, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 14.12.2011 ndk/c14121146