-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.1045 OF 2008 NO.1045 OF 2008 NO.1045 OF 2008 Siddhesh Transport Service ...Petitioners v/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and ors. ...Respondents Mr A.Y. Sakhare i/b Mr D.S. Mhaisapurkar for Petitioners. Mr Viral D. Shukla i/b M/s Shukla and Shukla for Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND N.D. DESHPANDE JJ. DATE : 28TH APRIL 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge award of contract by the respondent No.1 to respondent Nos.2 and 3. The contract has admittedly been awarded in the month of January 2007. the last date for submission of tender was 1st December 2006. The principal reason for not awarding the contract to the petitioners is that they did not comply with the condition No.2-b. That condition reads thus :- "b. The bidder should own or lease minimum 3 nos. of vehicles of the model not other than Three Year i.e. October 2003 vehicles registered as commercial vehicle in their names or firm’s name for use as commercial vehicles. The proof of ownership should be produced when called for. (Commercial means with ’T’ permit)." . Thus, this condition requires that the tenderer should have registered in his name minimum three vehicles as commercial vehicles of October 2003. Admittedly, on 1st December 2006, before the last date of tender, the petitioners did not have three vehicles -3- registered as commercial vehicles which were of October 2003 vintage. Though it appears that the petitioners had purchased the vehicles some time in November 2006, admittedly on the last date of submission of tender they did not comply with the aforesaid condition. In this background, the respondent No.1 selected respondent Nos.2 and 3 who complied with all the conditions and therefore no fault can be found with the same. In our opinion, two aspects are relevant. One, after the tender was accepted, the petitioners did not approach this Court, instead they filed civil suit, they obtained interim order, then they withdrew that suit and filed this petition. In our opinion, if according to the petitioners, the remedy of civil suit was available to them, they were not justified in withdrawing the suit and then approach h this Court. The second aspect that is relevant is that the contract has been awarded in January 2007 and we are hearing this petition in the month of April 2008. In our opinion, at this late stage, it will not be appropriate to interfere with the award of contract by the respondent No.1. It was not submitted before us that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who have been awarded contract, are also not fulfilling the required conditions. In our opinion, that is the only thing relevant for deciding whether the contract was rightly awarded to them or not. If they have committed any breaches of the contract awarded to them, the -4- respondent No.1 would be free to take action against them, but that will not give any cause of action to the petitioners to challenge the award of the contract. There is no substance in the petition. It is rejected. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( N.D. DESHPANDE J.)