mgn 1 pil-139-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.139 OF 2009 Sushil Bora ..Petitioner Versus 1.The Maharashtra State Bureau of Textbook Production & Curriculum Research & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Pankaj Kowli with Mr. Yogesh Deshpande for the Petitioner. Ms. S. Mutalik with J.G. Reddy for respondent No.1. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND GIRISH S. GODBOLE, J. Friday 10th June, 2011 PC: This petition was filed in November, 2009. The petitioner had challenged the decision of respondent No.1-The Maharashtra State Bureau to purchase paper from respondent Nos.6 to 9. 2. The petitioner had also prayed for direction to hold an enquiry regarding the purchase of paper by respondent No.1 for the year 2010-11 and earlier purchases. 3. In the affidavit in reply dated 14th March, 2011 it has been pointed mgn 2 pil-139-09.sxw out on behalf of respondent No.1 that the contracts given for the year 2009-2010 have already been executed and acted upon. The paper of the quantity ordered was received and payment was also made. As regards the purchase of paper for the year 2010-11 it is stated that the substantial quantity of paper is received. Respondent No.1 has also placed on record that respondent No.1 has placed orders of the following materials for the year 2011-2012:- Sr.No. Name of suppliers Quantity (in M.T.) 1. Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. 15000 2. Delta Paper Mills Ltd. 9000 3. Satia Industries Ltd. 4500 4. Shreyans Industries Ltd. 4500 5. Shree Bhawani Paper Mills Ltd. 2000 Total 35000 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 it appears that the petitioner’s grievance was mainly that respondent Nos. 11 and 12 were not considered for awarding the contracts. From the averments made in the affidavit in reply particularly paragraphs 4 and 12, it appears that respondent No.12 was awarded contracts for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 5. The above figures indicate that respondent No.12 has been awarded the contract for supply of substantial quantity of 15,000 metric tonnes out of the total quantity of 35,000. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage. mgn 3 pil-139-09.sxw 7. In case the petitioner apprehends any illegal action on the part of respondent No.1, in respect of the future years it will be open to the petitioner to move this Court. 8. Petition accordingly stands disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE GIRISH S. GODBOLE, J.