1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4609 OF 2011. Sarvoday Machchhimar Sahakari Sanstha Society, Mehkar, Distt.Buldhana. ..vs.. The State of Mah. through Secretary Mumbai and others. =-=-==-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. S.S.Dhengale Adv. for the petitioner. Mrs. B.H.Dangre, AGP for respondent no.1 to 4. C ORAM : D.D.SINHA AND A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : 9th NOVEMBER, 2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The main grievance of the petitioner is in respect of auction conducted by the respondent regarding the fishing tank in question pursuant to the tender notice of June, 2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the Policy of the State Government if the area of the tank is less than 200 hectares then it is not necessary to give the fishery rights of such a tank by floating tender. Fishery rights in such situation are required to be given on the basis of the said norms fixed by the State Government. It is submitted that the petitioner is concerned with Utawali Talav which is less than 200 hectares and therefore, the procedure adopted by 2 the respondent for giving the fishing rights in respect thereof by floating the tender is bad in law and therefore cannot be sustained in law. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has brought to our notice that the petitioner, pursuant to the tender notice submitted his tender and also participated in the process of tender, however, was not selected and therefore filed the present petition. It is, therefore, contended that having taken a chance in the tender process, the petition itself is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the auction has not yet been finalized, the contention canvassed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader does not demonstrate the correct position. Be that as it may, on the backdrop of the above referred fact it is not in dispute that the respondents floated tender in the month of June, 2011 for grant of fishery rights in respect of Utawali Talao. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has submitted his tender and also participated in the process of tender. In that view of the matter as well as per the settled position in law, once the candidate takes a chance and participates in the process of tender he should not be permitted to challenge the procedure adopted by the competent authority merely because he did not succeed. It is in this circumstance, we are not inclined to show any indulgence. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE. chute 3