(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7117 OF 2010 Shaikh Baba Faijoddin, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Garipura, Osmanabad, Taluka & District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary of Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Collector, Osmanabad, Taluka & District : Osmanabad. 3. The Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., Osmanabad. 4. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Osmanabad. 5. Smt. Saleema d/o. Bashumiya Shaikh, .. Respondents Age : 45 years, (No.5 - Occupation : Household, Intervenor) R/o. Kunhali, Taluka : Omerga, District : Osmanabad. ....................... (2) Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. A.R. Nikam, Advocate, for respondent no.5 / Intervenor. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the tender notice dated 19th July 2010, issued by the respondent no.4. 2. By the impugned tender notice, the respondent no.4 has invited tenders from physically handicapped persons, for running photostat centre in the premises of Osmanabad District Central Administrative Building, on lease basis. The petitioner claims that he is a handicapped person. According to the petitioner, such tender notice ought not have been issued in view of Government Resolution dated 26th April 2001, and premises ought to have been allotted to him since his application was pending. (3) 3. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned tender notice is not sustainable in law on two grounds : (i) that, the Executive Engineer has no authority to give the land on lease and it is only the Collector who is empowered to do so, and (ii) since the application of the petitioner is pending since long for allotment on the ground that the petitioner was a physically handicapped person and, as such, without inviting the tender notice, the land ought to have been allotted in favour of the petitioner. 4. The land, which is sought to be leased out for running photostat machine, is situated in the premises of Collector's office. Undisputedly, the premises of the Government are maintained by the Public Works Division. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit, in so far as first contention is concerned. 5. In so far as second contention is concerned, from the intervention application itself, it can be seen that there are more than one competitors who are willing to offer themselves for taking the premises on lease. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent nos.2, 3 and 4, it has been stated that seven persons have responded in response to the tender notice. A fair competition, amongst equally circumstanced persons, is totally (4) permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Merely because the petitioner is a handicapped person, and his application is pending, cannot vest any right in the petitioner. Particularly when more than one equally circumstanced persons are willing to compete, the State would be permitted to select the person who offers the best bid. 6. In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp7117