1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3597 OF 2009 Varadvinayak Swayamrojgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Marya, Jilha Jalgaon, through its President ..PETITIONER VERSUS The Chief Executive Officer (Transport), M.S.R.T.C. Ltd., Mumbai & anr. ..RESONDENTS Mr V.P. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND R. K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 24th June, 2009 PER COURT : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside communication dated 17.1.2009 issued by respondents directing reissuance of fresh tenders. The petitioner also prays to direct the respondents to allot shops for which the petitioner society had submitted tenders as per the tender notice No.1/2008 as the petitioner society was the highest bidder amongst first five bidders and to consider the claim of the 2 petitioner as per the Government Resolution. 2. Such of the facts as are necessary for decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus :- The petitioner society claims to be a society registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It appears that the respondents had published an advertisement inviting tenders for the allotment of shops. The petitioner, pursuant to the said advertisement submitted his tender for the allotment of shop. The petitioner claims to be the highest bidder and, therefore, was vying for acceptance of his tender. It appears that a decision has been taken by the respondents for reissuance of fresh tenders. The petitioner impugns the aforesaid decision. 3. A decision has been conscientiously arrived at by the respondents of reissuance of a fresh tender notice. It is not always incumbent upon the authority to accept the bids which are submitted. The respondents have decided to issue a fresh tender notice. The petitioner cannot challenge the aforesaid decision as it is within the discretion of the authorities to issue fresh tenders. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the present petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner after arguing for some time made a request for adjournment on the ground that the learned Counsel wanted to seek instructions from the petitioner for withdrawal of the petition. Learned Counsel states that the petitioner does not desire to withdraw the petition. 3 4. In the light of what has been stated by us above, petition is summarily dismissed. [ R. K. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] amj/wp3597.09