1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2240/2010 Satyam Diagnostice Centre vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order: 7.5.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr.Ranjeet Joshi, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The bids were invited for CT Scanner Machine in Mahatam Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. The petitioner also gave his bid and according to the petitioner he gave his rates which is inclusive of “contrast” as required by condition no.6 of the tender condition, copy of which is placed on record as Annex.6. But the respondent no.3's bid was not inclusive of contrast. However, his bid was accepted by the respondents vide order dated 12.2.2009 and then said bid was cancelled vide order dated 9.4.2009. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.3 challenged the order dated 9.4.2009 by preferring the writ petition before this Court which is SBCWP No.3282/2009. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 17.4.2009. The respondent no.3 preferred SAW no.491/2009 wherein the petitioner submitted an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for becoming party in the appeal. However,that application was rejected by the order dated 17.8.2009 by the Division Bench. The said 2 SAW is pending according to learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is now challenging the action of the respondent in awarding the contract to the respondent no.3 and also challenging the decision of the respondents to invite fresh bids as well as challenging the decision of respondents to determine what should be the rates for “contract”. The petitioner who gave bid was duly informed vide letter dated 29th July, 2009 that his bid has not been accepted by the Technical Committee. This order was not challenged by the petitioner then the contract was given to the respondent no.3 on 12.2.2009. That too was not challenged by the petitioner and when the respondent no.3 challenged the order passed against the respondent no.3 dated 9th April, 2009 then the petitioner tried to become wise and submitted application to become party in the D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.491/2009 preferred by the respondent no.3. The petitioner had no grievance when contract was given to the respondent no.3 as he did not raise any grievance against the order dated 12.2.2009 till it was cancelled. The writ petition of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed on the ground of latches as well as on the ground that petitioner wants to take benefit of the other's 3 litigation. In view of the above reasons I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-