1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3758 OF 2010 Papneshwar Mahila Bachat Gat Through its President Kusumbai w/o Kisanrao Mune and others .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others .. Respondents Mr.M.P.Kale, Advocate holding for Mr.S.K.Naikwade, Advocate for petitioners Mr.K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 26th April 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ directing respondent No.3 to open the tender bids submitted by the petitioners pursuant to the communication dated 26.3.2008 or in the alternative pray for directing the respondents to initiate fresh tender proceedings for the year 2010-2011. 2 2. It appears that pursuant to the tender notice published, the petitioners submitted their bid. On account of some ad interim orders which were passed by the Civil Court in proceedings initiated by one of the aspiring contractor aspiring to be allotted the tender, the entire tender process came to be delayed. Ultimately, ad interim order came to be vacated and the order vacating the ad interim order was confirmed by the appellate Court. Despite that, according to the petitioners the tender process which was for the year 2008-2009 had not culminated in the passing of any orders. The petitioners accordingly have prayed for issuance of a writ for directing the respondents to open the envelope/tender bids which were for the year 2008-2009 or in the alternative to direct the respondents to initiate fresh tender process for the year 2010-2011. 3. The petitioners have absolutely no legal right much less a legally enforceable right to file a petition for urging before this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to open the tender bids which were for the year 2008-2009. Undisputedly, the civil suit is pending. It is within the discretionary limits of the authority whether to proceed further with the tender notice or not. Question of judicial review would arise only in the event where the ultimate decision which is arrived at by the respondents is not transparent and does not conform to the Wednesbury’s principle. 3 4. After giving our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, according to us no case for interference is made out and consequently, this petition being sans merit is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/3758.10wp)