FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WP/1531/2011 TUSHAR BHAGCHAND CHALLANI VERSUS CIDCO THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR WITH WP/1532/2011 CHANDABAI BHAGCHAND CHALLANI VERSUS CIDCO THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR ... Advocate for Petitioner(s) : Shri Dhorde R.N. Advocate for Respondent(s) 1 & 2 : Shri Bajaj A.S. Advocate for Respondent(s) 3 : Shri Pathak A.S. ... CORAM : D B BHOSALE & S B DESHMUKH, JJ. Dated: June 29, 2011 ... 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this Writ Petitions, the petitioners are challenging the allotment orders dated 25.1.2011 issued by respondent No.2, whereby plot Nos. S-2 & S-3 admeasuring 28 sq. meters each, situated at N-9 CIDCO, Aurangabad have been allotted to respondent 3, in both petitions, in view of the advertisement dated 2.1.2011, is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. They have further prayed for allotment of the said plots to the petitioners who claim to be the highest bidder. 3. Shri Dhorde, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since respondent 3 has refused to accept the plots, and the petitioners being second highest bidder, respondent-CIDCO be directed to allot them to the petitioners. Respondent-CIDCO has filed reply affidavit and in paragraph Nos.6 to 8 thereof has stated thus ; " (6) I say that the Petitioner's contention that being the highest bidder or to say that after treating the Respondent No.3's tender as FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS (2) WP/1531/2011 invalid, she should be treated as highest bidder, cannot be accepted under the scheme. The petitioner can apply as and when the said plot will be re-advertised. This is also necessary in the interest of answering respondent and also public at large to have fair opportunity and transparency in the matter. (7) I say that the petitioner has stated that though base price was fixed @ Rs.3970/- per Sq. Meter and she has quoted rate @ Rs.60,120/- per Sq. Meter and as such she should be treated as highest bidder and plot in question be allowed to her is not acceptable under the scheme. (8) I say that this cannot be accepted as criteria for other plots, base price was fixed @ Rs.3970/- per Sq. meter, whereas, tenders were submitted in respect of such other plots to the tune of Rs.1,21,786/- and Rs.84,492/-." 4. Having considered the prayers made in the Writ Petitions whereby the petitioners have challenged the order of allotment of the plots in favour of respondent 3 and having considered the averments made in paragraphs 6 to 8 of the reply affidavit, we are satisfied that respondent-Cidco was justified in inviting fresh tenders in respect of the said plots. 5. We find no merit in the Writ Petitions. Writ Petitions, therefore, fail and dismissed as such. (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) akl