1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1373/2008 (Prasad Ashok Ashtikar & others VERSUS Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. S.Y. Deopujari, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Kaptan, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : MARCH 26, 2008. Heard. The writ petition is directed against the tender notice dated 04.03.2008 issued by the respondent Corporation, whereby the sealed tenders are invited in prescribed form from the reputed agencies or owner of Taxi Permit vehicles for the purpose of hire. The counsel for the petitioner states that Clause no.4 in the tender notice which reads thus----- “Vehicles manufactured before 01/01/2000 will not be hired by N.M.C. and if it is noticed that manufacturing date is before 01/01/2000, contract will be terminated.” 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner states that this is an unreasonable condition, and therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained in law. Mr. Kaptan, the learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the tender notice issued by the Corporation and the conditions mentioned therein are just and proper and are sustainable in law. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the tender notice. The Clause 4 of the said tender notice, according to us, cannot be said to be either unreasonable or unsustainable in law. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE APTE