FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9048 OF 2011 "Dnyaneshwar Pandurang Thombre Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr. R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3. Mr. G.D. Kale, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 2nd DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] The petitioner raises a grievance that though in pursuance to the tender notice issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner had submitted had submitted his tender at the lowest rate, work was not allotted to the petitioner and subsequently, work is allotted to respondent NO.4, without inviting tenders. 2] Shri Nagargoje, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and 3, makes a categorical statement that an offer was given to the petitioner that if he is willing to work at the rates of the last year, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were willing to give work to him. A categorical statement is made that the respondent No.4 is willing to do the work at the same (last years) rates. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9048 OF 2011 "Dnyaneshwar Pandurang Thombre Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 3] If the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are getting someone to do the work at a lower rate, by a judicial order, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, cannot be compelled to allot tender to someone at a higher rate. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [M.T. JOSHI,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-