1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3680/2009 [Ajay M. Gawande .vrs. The Executive Engineer (Civil) and another] ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2009. Heard Mr. G.G. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition the petitioner challenges action of respondent no.1 in allotting the tender to respondent no.2 in respect of item no.7 of tender notice No. T-52 – Annexure – B. Petitioner, a registered contractor, who is eligible to carry out construction up to Rs.30 lakhs in terms of licence granted by the State Government. In terms of licence granted to respondent no.2, the petitioner is entitled to carry out works up to Rs.15 lakhs. In the tender notice in respect of item no.7 estimated cost of the construction was mentioned as Rs.17,84,000/-. Respondent no.2 submitted his tender and quoted 22% below the estimated cost i.e. Rs.13,95,108/- and respondent no.1 allotted the tender to respondent no.2. 2 It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.2 did not qualify since estimated cost of construction at Sr. No.7 of notice inviting tender was Rs.17,84,000/-, since respondent no.2 was eligible to carry out works up to the value of Rs.15 Lakhs. We find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since respondent no.2 is eligible to carry out works up to Rs.15 Lakhs and the offer made by him is below Rs.15 Lakhs, respondent no.2 cannot be said to be disqualified for allotment of work in question. In any case the petitioner, who is eligible to carry out works up to Rs.30 Lakhs, cannot be a relator for filing the petition. It is also pertinent to note that in the petition the petitioner has neither stated as to what was the amount quoted by him nor the learned counsel for the petitioner, when called upon to state, was in a position to state the amount quoted by the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner also that respondent no.2 was not lowest tenderer. Thus allotment of tender to respondent no.2 cannot be said to be against public interest. In view of the above, we find no merit in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande