{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6425 OF 2009 M/s Sai Crane Services PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.A.G.Talhar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr.S.S.Dande, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 ....... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6426 OF 2009 M/s Magnetic Electric & Electronics PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.A.G.Talhar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr.S.S.Dande, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 29th September 2009 PER COURT: 1. Both these petitions, since raise similar challenges, can be decided by this common order. {2} 2. The petitioners in both these petitions, were the sole tenderers, who had submitted their bids pursuant to the public notice published in the newspaper. The last date for submission of bids was specified in the said tender notice as well as the respondents reserved to themselves the power to reject the tenders, if it was for an amount below the upset price, which was stated in the said tender notice. The petitioners claim to have submitted their bids in which they had given their offer for an amount above the upset price. The respondents, it appears, after a period of 6 months, had taken a decision of rejecting the tenders of the petitioners and to issue fresh tender notice. The aforesaid action of the respondents is the subject matter of challenge in the present petitions, in which the petitioners, in their respective petitions, pray for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to accept the tenders of the petitioners and for quashing of the order dated 23.07.2009. Learned counsel for respondents has stated before us that the respondents have taken a policy decision of issuance of a fresh tender notice in respect of the auction of the plots wherein only a single bid has been received. In any event, the petitioners do not have any legally enforceable right to claim that the respondents should accept their tenders. Since only single tender was received by the respondents, we do not find that the action of the respondents is arbitrary in rejecting the bids of the petitioners and directing issuance of a fresh tender notice. In the light of that, therefore, we do not see any merit in the petitions. The writ petitions are summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp6425-09