1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4721 OF 2009 Shridhar s/o Harischandra Navghare ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr G.D. Kale, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondent – State. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 22nd July, 2009 PER COURT : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner dated 2.2.2009 for refund of amount of Rs. 15,16,200/- to the petitioner. The petitioner by virtue of prayer clause (D) also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.15,16,200/- with interest to the petitioner. 2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus :- 2 The petitioner claims to be a Proprietor of M/s ASR Industries, Plot No.61, MIDC, Waluj Industrial Area, Aurangabad, which came to be established by the petitioner since the year 1998. On 31.1.2008 the petitioner requested the M.I.D.C. to allot Plot No.M-64, admeasuring 800 Sq.Mtrs. to the petitioner. According to the petitioner as per the Govt. Circular dated 18.3.2008 the persons like petitioner would be entitled for allotment of the said plot if the application is for expansion of the existing activity. The allotment of the said plot would depend on the rate of upset price fixed by the M.I.D.C. By notice dated 9.6.2008 a tender notice came to be published as there was another applicant who had also requested for allotment of the said plot. Pursuant thereto, a tender notice was published in the newspaper and the petitioner quoted Rs.3,125/- per Sq. Mtr. as against the minium upset price fixed by the M.I.D.C. at Rs. 1,200/- per Sq. Mtr. The other applicant M/s Nath Screen Pvt. Ltd. was held ineligible on account of insufficiency of the information provided by the said M/s Nath Screen Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the petitioner, who was found to be eligible, was allotted the said plot at the rate quoted by the petitioner i.e. Rs.3,125/- per Sq. Mtr. This order was passed on 17.10.2008 and accordingly the petitioner paid the entire consideration and thereafter an agreement of lease came to be executed between the petitioner and the respondents on 17.10.2008. The petitioner was put in physical possession of the said plot and the petitioner completed the construction and started production within six months of the said date. This petition, therefore, is filed by the petitioner on the ground that the respondents ought to have called for 3 technical bid before calling for financial bid and since the other applicant, namely M/s Nath Screen Pvt. Ltd. was held to be ineligible and the petitioner being the sole applicant thereof, the process of tender ought to have been abandoned by the respondents and the plot ought to have been allotted to the petitioner as per the norms which are laid down and not on the basis of the rate quoted by the petitioner. 3. It is urged by Shri Kale, learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the other applicant was held to be ineligible, the plot ought to have been allotted to the petitioner as per the norms laid down by the M.I.D.C. and the auction ought not to have been held and the plot ought not to have been allotted on the basis of the rates quoted by the petitioner. 4. According to us, the present petition is wholly misconceived. The petitioner participated in the tender process, submitted his bid and the bid came to be accepted by the respondents. The petitioner executed the lease deed and took possession of the plot, carried out construction and started production and thereafter has now filed the present petition. According to us, the petitioner having gone through the entire process now cannot turn round and question the process on the ground that as per the tender process one of the tenderors was held to be ineligible and, therefore, the bid of the petitioner ought not to have proceeded further but the plot ought to have been allotted to the petitioner on the basis of norms that the petitioner was the sole applicant. The petitioner cannot be permitted to do so. We, therefore, find no merit in the present petition and the same is, 4 therefore, summarily dismissed. In the light of the fact that we are dismissing the petition in respect of prayer clause (D) to the petition, we leave it to the discretion of the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner, if deemed fit by the respondents. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. [ A.V. POTDAR, J. ] [ P.V.HARDAS, J.]