SAS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.18384 OF2007 REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.18384 OF2007 REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.18384 OF2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.3198 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.3198 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.3198 OF 2007 Proactive In and Out Advertising ..Applicant/ Pvt.Ltd. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, senior counsel with Niranjan Shimpi for petitioner. Smt.M.P.Thakur, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Mr.Santosh Deshpande with J.C.Reddy for respondent No.2. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2007. DATED : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2007. DATED : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2007. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- By our order dated 30th April, 2007 we declined to interfere and exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction as it was the case of the respondents that they had already invited fresh tenders for 180 bus shelters and had issued work orders in favour of Ronak Advertising. 2. Petitioner’s were awarded a contract to - = : 2 : = - construct 305 bus shelters. Petitioner’s case was that he was entrusted to construct 307 + 118 bus shelters. According to the respondents, the petitioner constructed 360 shelter which were more that what was contracted. The respondent had contended that they had invited tender for 180 bus shelter and pursuant to that had issued work order in favour of one Ronak Advertising, respondent No.4. In view of that we had decided not to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction. The issue of the 55 additional bus shelters which the respondent claim were extra and which the petitioner deny being extra and whatever the petitioner’s legal right in those shelters has neither been discussed nor decided by us. That question if arises will have to be gone into in an appropriate proceedings. 3. The review petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The earlier order accordingly stands clarified. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)