1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.No. 4128/2009 Girdharilal Tillumal Lalwani vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Registration and Stamps,Mantralaya , Mumbai and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. CORAM : A.P.Lavande & P.D.Kode,JJ DATE : 29.09.2009 Heard Mr. R.M. Ahirrao, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the notice dated 4.9.2009 inviting tender issued by respondent no.2 for supply of computer hardware and for providing services in the 522 offices of Sub Registrar in the State of Maharashtra as per the scheduled given in the notice. Mr. Ahirrao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice is patently arbitrary and against the public interest inasmuch as by the impugned notice instead of inviting tender District-wise the notice has been issued inviting tender in respect of the offices in entire State of Maharashtra whereby there would not be healthy competition. 2` 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not impressed with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled that in matters of tender it is for the authority inviting tender to lay down the guidelines and the terms and conditions and unless the same are found to be patently illegal and arbitrary, this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would not interfere. We do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. That by the impugned notice several persons who are desirous of offering bids have been disqualified since the offer is invited in respect of the offices in the State of Maharashtra. In our opinion, by the impugned notice neither the competition is done away nor public interest is going to suffer. Hence, we do not find any merit in the submissions of the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE patle 3`