FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3189 OF 2011 "M/s. Ghai Construction Through Jaspalsingh H Ghai Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. Amol S. Gawali, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.S. Patil, AGP for respondent No.1. Mr. Alok Sharma, ASG for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 14TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] The petitioner has approached this court, basically being aggrieved by the condition in the tender notice, which reads thus :- “C(ii) An affidavit from the bidder, that the bidder is not involved in any litigation with the NHAI/CPWD/State PWD/MSRDC or any other Govt. Agency.” 2] Since we prima facie found that it is only the petitioner who has submitted bid in response to tender advertisement in question and all other candidates were fond to be unqualified to participate in the bid, we had asked to take instructions from the petitioner as to what was the final offer that FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3189 OF 2011 "M/s. Ghai Construction Through Jaspalsingh H Ghai Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 the petitioner was willing to give. Accordingly, the petitioner had categorically stated that he was willing to give an offer of Rs. 3.11 Crores. Since we also found that the offer given by the petitioner of Rs.3.11 Crores was more than the upset price of Rs.3.2 Crores, it would be in the interest of the respondents themselves to consider the offer of the petitioner, inasmuch as, inviting fresh tenders would have resulted in spending money from the public exchequer, we had asked the respondents to consider the offer of the petitioner. 3] The learned ASG had sought time on various occasions to take instructions in the matter. Finally, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, dated 10th October, 2011, wherein, it has been specifically stated in para.12 as under :- “I further state that pursuant to the recommendation, the State of Maharashtra (R-1) has accepted the proposal of the petitioner i.e. M/s. Ghai Construction for the collection of Toll on the National Highway-9 KM 307/200 between Pune-Solapur-Hyderabad and specifically for the Bridge Yenegurna. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3189 OF 2011 "M/s. Ghai Construction Through Jaspalsingh H Ghai Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3 . That, accordingly the Toll Collection for the same will be handed to the petitioner on a total offer amount of Rs. 3.11 Crores for 12 months. The petitioner will also have to fulfill the various conditions of the tender”. 4] However, the learned counsel for the petitioner apprehends that some of the averments made in para.2 ,3 and 5 and last sentence of para.12 in the affidavit in reply to the effect that the petitioner will also have to fulfill various “conditions of the tender”, are capable of giving an impression that unless the conditions, which are impugned in the present petition are complied with, the petitioner shall not be given the work order. 5] However, now it is not in dispute that while accepting the offer of the petitioner by the respondents, it has also been categorically stated by the respondents in the affidavit that the work of toll collection will be handed over to the petitioner, at a total offer amount of Rs.3.11 crores for 12 months. In view of the letter of acceptance, we find that all further steps will be only formality for complying with the letter of acceptance. Having accepted the offer of the petitioner, we find that the respondents would not now insist on any other condition, including the FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3189 OF 2011 "M/s. Ghai Construction Through Jaspalsingh H Ghai Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 4 conditions impugned in the present petition. 6] Though, we prima facie find that the condition which is impugned in the petition is not sustainable in law, we refrain from going into that issue at this stage, inasmuch as, we find that the purpose of the present petitioner is served, as the offer of the petitioner has been accepted by giving a letter of acceptance. 7] We, therefore, dispose of the petition by directing the respondents to issue work order to the petitioner within a period of one week from today. [M.T. JOSHI,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-