1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2089 OF 2007 Madhukar Bhikaji Patil ..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ..Respondents ... Advocates appearing for : Petitioner : Shri R.L.Kute h/f Shri R.N.Dhorde, Advocates Respondents : Shri M.N.Navandar. ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. Dated : November 10, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective respondents. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Petitioner in this writ petition, seeks quashment of the letter dated 5.2.2007 addressed by respondent No.2 to the petitioner (Exhibit "E" to this petition). Vide this letter, the petitioner has been informed by respondent No.2 that the petitioner has been banned from participating in any tender process for the period of one year from the date of issuance of this letter. The reason assigned for issuing such an order / letter, according to respondent No.2, is that it was noticed by the tender committee that the petitioner has tried to mis-lead the tender committee by quoting low rates of 2 various types of Rice. 4. There is no return filed on behalf of respondents. This petition was taken up for admission hearing on 11.4.2007. This Court, after hearing the parties, passed an interim order. By this order, this Court has stayed the letter / order issued by respondent No.2 dt.5.2.2007 and further the petitioner was permitted to participate in the tender process of respondents. This Court has also clarified that respondents are bound to supply the tender forms to the petitioner till further orders. This being an interim order, has it's own life. In other words, this order is in operation till today. We are today finally disposing of the Writ Petition. 5. The letter dated 5.2.2007 has effect on the petitioner for the specific period i.e. for the period of one year from 5.2.2007. We are not entering into the reasons mentioned in this letter and we are also not scrutinising the ground weighed with respondents while issuing this letter. The petitioner has already been protected by way of interim order, as referred to above. Said protection is in operation till today. 6. Period of one year during which the petitioner was banned from participating the tender process of respondents, obviously, has come to an end. Shri Navandar, learned Advocate appearing for respondents, on instructions makes a statement that even after the period of one year from 5.2.2007, the petitioner is permitted to participate in the various tender processes. Said statement is accepted and taken on record. We do not feel 3 that any point survives for ad-judication in the present writ petition. It has become infructuous. 7. Shri Kute, learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case M/s Southern Painters Vs. Fertilizers and Chemicals [AIR 1994 SC 1277]. The facts of this case and the facts of the case on hand are altogether different. In the case before Supreme Court, the appellant was empaneled and was deleted from the list without due notice. Principles of natural justice were not followed and therefore, the Supreme Court interfered into the matter. However, in paragraph No.10 of the judgment, it has been recorded that virtually no effective grantable relief to the appellant is available. However, the Supreme Court has directed the respondents that if they wish to delete the name of the appellant therein, they have to observe the principles of natural justice. This judgment, since the facts of the said case are not similar to the facts of the case on hand, is of no help to the petitioner. 8. In the result, Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (SHRIHARI P.DAVARE,J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) ... akl