1 W.P.No.7519/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7519 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.S.M.Vibhute, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.M.V.Deshpande, adevocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 28.09.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The present petitioner had had filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the highest bidder, was allotted the contract for vehicle parking under the fly-over bridge of Shivajinagar, Nanded and the petitioner was granted necessary license to carry on the said business. The said license was for a period from 1.9.2009 to 31.3.2011. The case of the petitioner was that the Respondent gave possession of the site two months and 19 days late and as such he is entitled for the extension of the said period. The petitioner also 2 W.P.No.7519/11 moved an application for temporary injunction. The same was rejected. The petitioner preferred Misc. Civil Appeal before the District Court. The District Court also rejected the same. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 3. Mr.Vibhute, learned counsel submits that even as per the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, the petitioner is entitled to claim extension. This aspect has not been considered by the Courts below in the correct perspective. When the petitioner has a right to claim extension, the same can not be denied by the Respondent. When the petitioner is in a position to show that the said site was handed over to the petitioner late by two months and 19 days. The learned counsel further contends that even the fresh allotment is not been done by tender and is sought to be done by negotiations which is not permissible. 4. The period of contract came to an end on 3l.3.2011. Even if the petitioner's case is considered, he sought extension of two months and 19 days after 3l.3.2011. The said period is also over. As such now the petitioner can not claim any right. Moreover, these are the rights which can be compensated in terms of money for which no injunction can be granted. 5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition being sans merit, is dismissed. No costs. 6. I am not required to consider the other arguments of the 3 W.P.No.7519/11 learned counsel that the Corporation is giving the fresh tender by private negotiation and not by public notice. The petitioner can avail appropriate remedy in that regard. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.28.09.2011. asp/office/wp7519.11 4 W.P.No.7519/11