1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLTE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLIATION NO. 1543 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5946 OF 2008 M/s. J.H. Bhambhani . ......Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...... Respondents ----- Mr. A.M. Joshi, for the Petitioner Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent nos.1,3 and 4. Mr. P.P. Chavan, i/b Navdeep Vora & Assoc., for Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 12TH OCTOBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm which is engaged in construction activities. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra and Respondent No.2 is the Executive Engineer of MIDC, Alibag Division. Respondent No.2 published tenders for the work of Taloja Industrial Area providing second access to Taloja Industrial Area and for final asphaltic treatment to road ‘A’. 2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the said tenders, the petitioner applied for the same and the second respondent vide agreement 2 No.B/1/42 for the year 1999-2000 granted the contract in favour of the petitioner. The said work was to be completed within a period of nine months i.e. on or before 6.12.2000. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 23.1.2009 passed by the Division Bench presided over by Shri Justice B.H. Marlapalle, the second respondent was directed to hear the petitioner and pass a fresh order of computation and to serve a copy thereof on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the second respondent was required to give reasoned order vide letter dated 3.2.2009 the second respondent has merely given computation of the amount due. Learned counsel for the second respondent on the other hand submitted that the second respondent cannot be faulted for passing order giving computation of the amount due because that is exactly what second respondent was supposed to do under the order dated 23.1.2009. 4. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the computation of the amount would also involve determination of liability of the petitioner. He sought to rely on several judgments of the Supreme Court and also of different High Courts in support of his submissions. The petition is disposed of by a reasoned order. The matter cannot be reopened by filing a civil application. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he will file a substantive petition raising challenge to letter dated 3.2.2009. 3 5. In the circumstances we dispose of the civil application with liberty to the petitioner to file a substantive petition if he so desires to challenge letter dated 3.2.2009. 6. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the contentions raised by the petitioner in the civil application. All contentions raised by him are kept open. We are informed that some amount is deposited in this court. The said amount will abide by the order which may be passed in the substantive petition filed by the petitioner. The respondents shall not withdraw that amount for a period of four weeks. 7. The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. (A.A. SAYED J.) (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)