1 WP 1392.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1392 OF 2011 Deepak S/o Champatrai Ajmera .... PETITIONER VERSUS The Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation and others. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. P.R.Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.D.Godbharle, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. S.P.Deshmukh, Advocate for Resp. No. 1. Mr. K.K. Naik, Advocate holding for Mr. V.D.Sonawane, Advocate for Resp. No. 2. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 25/02/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner participated in tender process against tender notice issued on 4/10/2010 by respondent no. 1 – The Maharashtra State 2 WP 1392.2011 Warehousing Corporation, Pune for construction of ware house. The technical bid was opened on 19/11/2010 and petitioner was found eligible along with nine ( 9 ) others. On 27/12/2010 financial bid was opened. The petitioner was found to be successful and lowest bidder. 3. Mr. P.R. Patil, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is aggrieved by communication dated 15/2/2011 having outward No. 293, wherein, in pursuance of clause 15 of tender and other relevant clauses, EMD and supplementary bank guarantee was forfeited by General Manager (Engg.) of respondent no. 1. The learned counsel submits that for consideration of petitioner’s grievance, reasonable interpretation of clause nos. 7,10,12 and 15 of tender notice is essential. The learned counsel further submits that in the light of communication made by General Manager of respondent no. 1 on 15/2/2011 having outward No. 292, the petitioner’s case requires to be considered. This communication is placed on record by petitioner by way of Civil Application tendered today. The learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment in the case of Managing Director, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation and others V/s Hari Om Enterprises and another reported in (2009) 16 Supreme Court Cases – 208 and reference to paragraph nos. 38 and 39, which reads : 3 WP 1392.2011 “ 38. We may notice that Teri Oat Estates ( P ) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh a Bench of this Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 opined that power of resumption and forfeiture should be taken recourse to as a last resort. While holding that each case may have to be viewed on its own facts, the action of the statutory authority must be judged on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Court applied the doctrine of proportionality having regard to a large number of decisions operating in the field. This Court, however, also put a note of caution that no order should be passed only on sympathy or sentiment. 39. Doctrine of proportionality has since been applied in Sandeep Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra and Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana ”. 4. Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 submits that petitioner has violated conditions of clause of tender notice. Therefore, the respondent – Corporation in view of clause no. 15 4 WP 1392.2011 has rightfully issued impugned communication. The petitioner communicated to the Corporation during the process of tender, change of location, which itself was ground for invoking clause no. 15. The petitioner’s later communication dated 15/2/2011, according to learned counsel, was to cover up earlier stand adopted by petitioner so as to avoid consequences of clause no. 15 of tender notice. The learned counsel submits that petitioner is raising issues in respect of contractual relations, rights, obligations of the parties, which in the facts of the case can not revised in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 5. We have perused relevant documents, Judgment cited supra and considered arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respective parties. 6. In the facts of the case, we find that petitioner may approach competent Civil Court in respect of grievance raised in the petition. In extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. However, considering peculiar facts of the case, we observe that in case bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner in favour of respondent – Corporation is not encashed, the same shall not be encashed by respondent – Corporation for a period of seven ( 7 ) days from today. 5 WP 1392.2011 7. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the issues raised by contesting parties. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Authenticated copy be given. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] knp/WP 1392.2011