IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1061 OF 2011 Mr.Sufyan Shafi Khan. .. Petitioner. Vs. 1.M/s.Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd .. Respondents. Dr. Shah Alam Khan, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil R Mishra, for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED : 26th APRIL, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for respondent no.1. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to respondent no.1 to forthwith withdraw and/or cancel the impugned decision of accepting the bid/offer of respondent no.4. The petitioner has also prayed for direction to respondent no.2 to forthwith accept the petitioner’s bid, since it was highest. Admittedly, Letter of Intent has been issued by respondent nos 1 and 2 in favour of respondent no.4 on 13.5.2010 and that respondent no.4 erected hoarding immediately thereafter. This petition was filed in January, 2011 challenging the decision of accepting the bid of respondent no.4 vide Letter of Intent dated T 13.5.2010. We have perused the offers given by different bidders to which our attention was invited to by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner’s offer was highest, but he offered deposit of Rs.2.25 lakhs only. As against this, the offer of respondent no.4 was 1,79,991 and Rs.1079946 as deposit. One of the grounds for not accepting the petitioner’s bid, though it was highest, according to learned counsel for respondent nos 1 and 2, was that the petitioner's annual turn over was shown as 24 lakhs only, which was less then the total of the bid amount for one year. It was, therefore, submitted that though such condition was not mentioned in the tender document, it was taken into consideration for accepting the bid of respondent no.4. We are not inclined to enter into these controversies in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at belated stage. In our opinion, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. No satisfactory explanation is offered for approaching this court after more than six months and that too after erection of the hoarding by respondent no.4. The writ petition accordingly fails and dismissed as such. (U.D.SALVI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)