1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1963 OF 2008 Mohd. Najamuddin Mohd. Nasiroddin Farooqi, R/o-Katkat Gate, Near Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, (Through it's Water Conservation Department), Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032), 2) Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Through its Superintending Engineer, Opp. Milind College, Chhawani, Post Box No.556, Aurangabad 431 002, 3) Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Through its Executive Engineer, Opp. Milind College, Chhawani, Post Box No.556, Aurangabad 431 002, 4) Parshwa Traders, Shop No.2, Building No.1, Runwal Park, Market Yard, Pune 411 037, Through its Proprietor. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. N.N. Chitlange Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri. D.P. Bakshi Advocate for Resp. Nos. 2 & 3 Shri. R.G. Joshi Advocate for Respondent No.4. ... 2 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2820 OF 2010 ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD MARCH, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner filed this Petition stating to be in public interest. The Petitioner raised question in respect of floating of tender by Respondent Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran. The tender was for sale of scrap material. 3. The Petitioner prayed for setting aside the letter dated 29th January, 2008, by which the tender was allotted to Respondent No.4. It was further prayed, in the alternative, to award 3 tender to another agency quoting higher rates. 4. In substance, the contention of the Petitioner is that in the subject tender process, the Respondent Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran had decided to allot the tender to Respondent No.4 inspite of the fact that one New Bharat Scrap Material Purchaser, who was the earlier purchaser had offered higher rates. Admittedly, New Bharat Scrap Material Purchaser did not participate in the tender process. The rate quoted by Respondent No.4 was Rs.17.50 per kg. and according to internal office note, the Petitioner would submit, that New Bharat Scrap Material Purchaser offered rate of Rs.19 per kg. in respect of the purchase of scrap material. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on internal office notes in support of the submissions that the Respondent Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran ought to have allotted the said tender to New Bharat Scrap Material Purchaser, who 4 had offered more price for the scrap material than what was quoted by the Respondent No.4. It was submitted by the counsel that the Respondent Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran was incurring loss of around Rs.2 Lakhs to 3 Lakhs if this tender process was allowed to go ahead. 6. The learned counsel for Respondent Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran placed reliance on the reply filed. It was pointed out by the counsel that Writ Petition No.1097 of 2008 was filed by the said New Bharat Scrap Material Purchaser, which came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 15th February, 2008. The counsel submits that this being a contractual matter and the fact that New Bharat Scrap Material Purchaser did not participate in the tender process, the Respondent Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran decided to allot the tender to the highest bidder i.e. Respondent No.4. 7. The counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 5 submitted that this Court by an Order dated 13th March 2008, directed to maintain status quo. The scrap material was lying idle since then. Though its value has depreciated, the Respondent No.4 has shown willingness to purchase the said material at the same rate which was quoted at the time of submitting tender. 8. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the relevant record produced before us. The tender notice was issued on 11th July, 2007. The office notes had indicated that earlier supplier New Bharat Scrap Material Purchaser was willing to pay more price than the Respondent No. 4. Admittedly New Bharat Scrap Material Purchaser did not participate in the tender process. The tender of highest bidder was accepted and work order was issued in favour of Respondent No.4, against which, it was submitted that an amount of Rs.70,000/- (Rs. Seventy Thousand only) was deposited by Respondent No.4 with Maharashtra 6 Jeevan Pradhikaran. 9. This being a contractual transaction between the parties, this Court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would interfere in the matters only if it is noticed that process was conducted arbitrarily and against the public interest. The Courts can certainly examine whether there has been any infirmity in the decision making process and whether it was reasonable, rational. The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. 10. In absence of New Bharat Scrap Material Purchaser being participant in the tender process, we do not find, in the facts of the case, any ground to cancel the tender process by directing the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran to initiate fresh process merely on the basis that some office note indicated that New Bharat Scrap Material Purchaser was willing to pay more price. 7 Ultimately, it is the choice of the Respondent Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran to accept the tender of a party. The tender is merely an offer, which could be accepted or rejected. 11. In the facts of the case, we find that the scrap material is lying idle since last two years. Learned counsel Shri Bakshi informed this Court that recently Pradhikaran had issued tender for selling balance scrap material and they received tender at the rate of Rs.16.50 per kg. It is further informed that New Bharat Scrap Material Purchaser did not participate even at this time. 12. We do not find any merit in the Petition. Writ Petition is dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated. 13. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition itself, nothing survives for consideration in the Civil Application and the same is disposed of. 8 . Authenticated copy of this order be provided to the learned counsel for the requesting parties. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/MAR10/wp1963.08