(1) wp1158-11-group IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1158 OF 2011 Rajaramji Krashnaji Magare & others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.J. Nirmal, advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, advocate for Respondent No. 4. Mr. A.A. Nimbalkar, advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for Respondent No. 5. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3089 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3088 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3142 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6625 OF 2011 ..... Mr. S.R. Bagul, advocate for the applicant in Civil Application No. 3089/2011. Mr. S.B. Ghatol-Patil, advocate for the applicants in Civil Application No. 3088/2011. Mr. D.V. Soman, advocate for the applicant in Civil Application No. 3142/2011. Mr. P.R. Patil, advocate for the applicants in Civil Application No. 6625/2011. ..... (2) wp1158-11-group CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 11th OCTOBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the decision of the Respondent No. 2 regarding the transfer of the Respondent No. 4 Karkhana to Respondent No. 5 Karkhana. It is the contention of the petitioners that the impugned transfer is illegal inasmuch as the same is being done without inviting tenders. 2. Though, in this petition, various other issues are raised by the petitioners, we do not find it necessary to go into those aspects of the matter. 3. Since it was the basic contention of the petitioners that the transaction of transferring the Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 5 is not in the interest of the share-holders of Respondent No. 4 Karkhana, to test the bonafides of the petitioners, we had made it clear that the petition would be (3) wp1158-11-group entertained only if the petitioners, either they themselves or through someone else, would come with better offer than the one given by the Respondent No. 5 Karkhana. As such, we had adjourned the matter on 13th September, 2011. On 27th September, 2011, Shri Nirmal, learned counsel for the petitioners, had further sought time to take instructions as to whether the petitioners themselves were willing to make better offer or get someone who is willing to give a better offer than the one given by Respondent No. 5. Today also, the learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to make any statement in that regard. 4. It is thus clear that the present petition is not a bonafide one. In any case, no material is placed on record to show that the impugned transfer in favour of Respondent No. 5 Karkhana is against the interest of Respondent No. 4 Karkhana or its share- holders. In that view of the matter, we do not find that any case in this petition is made out for interference by this Court. Hence, the Writ Petition is rejected. (4) wp1158-11-group 5. The Civil Applications filed for intervention in this petition are allowed, for the reasons stated therein. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, all other Civil Applications stand disposed of accordingly. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] npj/wp1158-11-group