1 pil77-10 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.77 OF 2010 Chitranjan Kumar ....Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Chitranjan Kumar in Person. Ms.Geeta Shastri, A.G.P. for the Respondents. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. THURSDAY, 3RD FEBRUARY 2011. P.C. :- 1. This is a petition, purporting to be the public interest litigation. The petitioner has prayed for the directions to respondent No. 3 – The Director (Through Assistant Director), Drug Purchase Cell, Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Mumbai to open up the “price bid” of tender dated 3.10.2009. 2. Heard Ms.Shastri, the learned A.G.P. for the State. She states that since that tender process is cancelled and the fresh bids are invited by another tender notice, the petition has become infructuous. It is further stated that the decision taken pursuant to the fresh tender process was challenged in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.2419 of 2010 and this Court allowed the petition and gave the following directions :- 2 pil77-10 “21. In the circumstances and for the reasons indicated earlier, we are of the view that the Petitioner would be entitled to succeed. We, therefore, quash and set aside the decision of the Tender Approval Committee dated 29 September 2010 recommending the award of contract to the Second Respondent and the consequential award of the contract to the Second Respondent by the State Government. While doing so, we leave it open to the First Respondent to proceed in accordance with law. The Second Respondent would be at liberty either to invite fresh bids if it is so advised or to proceed from the stage at which the tendering process is found to have suffered from an illegality. In the event that the State Government adopts the second course of action, the process shall be completed by disregarding the decision of the Tender Approval Committee dated 29 September, 2010, which has been set aside. 22. We clarify that in the event of a fresh tender being floated, it would be open to all parties including the Second Respondent to participate in the tender. The question of eligibility of the participating bidders shall be decided by the Tender Approval Committee on the basis of the conditions of eligibility which are prescribed for the tender.” 3. In view of the above, it is obvious that the petition pertaining to the tender process of 2009, has become infructuous. The petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. At this stage, the petitioner appearing in person, prays for leave to file a fresh petition. 4. Since the tender process of 2009 was already given up and the decision taken in the second tender process has been quash and set- aside, this Court has given an opportunity to the State Government to take a fresh decision. As indicated above, there is no question of any opportunity being granted to the petitioner. If the petitioner has any 3 pil77-10 cause of action to challenge any subsequent decision of the Government, it is for this Court to grant or refuse an opportunity. 5. Subject to the above observations, the public interest litigation is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.