1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 980/1997 (SHAILESH PRAKASHMALJI JAIN & OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.D. Kothari, A.G.P. for the R-1 & 2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : JULY 8 , 2011 . None for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioners seek a Writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the resolution passed by the Municipal Council on 22.03.1997. The petitioners also seek a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the order dated 31.03.1997 granting Contract of Octroi collection in favour of the respondent no.5. By an amendment, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent nos.1 to 5 to pay Rupees Ten Lacs to the Municipal Council, Saoner for compensating the loss caused to the Municipal Council, Saoner because of the illegal allotment of Octroi Tender Contract in favour of the respondent no.5. It is necessary to note that the Contract of Octroi collection was granted in the year 1997 and this Court had not granted any interim order in favour of the petitioner. It appears that the respondent no.5 must have executed the contract granted in his favour. The other prayer made by the 2 petitioners for a direction to the respondent nos.1 to 5 to pay a sum of Rupees Ten Lacs to the Municipal Council, Saoner towards compensation for the loss caused to the Municipal Council cannot be granted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India as it is not possible for this Court to determine the exact loss caused to the Municipal Council even if it is assumed that any loss was caused to the Council by the allotment of the Contract to the respondent no.5. Hence, in the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. JUDGE JUDGE APTE