1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1957 OF 2010 Tristars Multi-Trade Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioners V/s. The State Government of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents. Shri Rahul Karnik for the Petitioners. Shri D.A. Nalawade, GP for the Respondents. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 26TH AUGUST, 2010. P.C. 1. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board at 3.00 p.m. 2. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the substantial prayer in this petition filed under section 226 of Constitution of India reads as under:- “This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari and Writ of Mandamus as the case may be directing the Respondent No.2 to extend the date for the submission of Tender document by period of Three or Four weeks or to any such stipulated period as decided by this Hon’ble Court with regards to Phone/fleet taxi Scheme 2010.” 3. The leaned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the Notification dated 14th July 2010, issued by the State Government through 2 its Home Department under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and a tender notice dated was published in the newspaper dated 4th August, 2010. The petitioner has admittedly purchased the tender documents. It has represented to the State Government against the condition to submit an irrevocable performance guarantee of non revolving nature valid for 18 months from the date of tender, for 50, 00,00,000/- on the ground that it was unreasonable. Therefore, a meeting was held on 17th August, 2010 and clarifications were received from the office of Transport Commissioner on 21st August, 2010, The grievance of the petitioner was that the bank guarantee was to be issued by a nationalized bank only and in the clarification dated 21st August, 2010, it was stated that the bank guarantee could be taken from the private banks like ICICU/ HDFC/ Axis Bank or any other Scheduled Bank, recognised by RBI, having deposit of more than Rs. one thousand crores and appropriate net worth. It is submitted before us that after receiving the clarification the petitioner approached the HDFC Bank on 23rd August, 2010 and therefore the procedural delay came in the way of the petitioner to submit tender with all compliance, today upto 2 p.m., as the bank has informed the petitioner that it would take a few days more to issue the bank guarantee. 4. If the petitioner was aware that the bank guarantee was to be from a nationalized bank only as was initially stated in the tender document, there 3 was no impediment to approach any such bank and it cannot be accepted that the clarification dated 21st August, 2010, enabled the petitioner to approach HDFC Bank and therefore, this Court should issue a writ extending the date for acceptance of the tender by three or four weeks. 5. We are, therefore, not inclined to show our indulgence in entertaining this petition and the same is rejected summarily. (A.A.SAYED,J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)