1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3468 OF 2008 1) Datar Ice Factory Nanded and others. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and others. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.S.M.Godsay, Advocate for Petitioners; Mr.S.K.Tambe, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2; Mr.R.F.Totla, Advocate for Respondent No.3. ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 17th November, 2009. PER COURT : . Heard. 2) Learned Counsel Shri Godsay submits that the entire tender process is done with malafide intention, which has resulted in depriving the deserving persons and benefiting some persons having vested interest. According to the Counsel, the earlier method of issuance of 2 tender, i.e. by sending individual letters, was deviated this time. Even the period of contract under the present tender was extended from one year to three years. According to the petitioners, as per earlier procedure, the bidders were to quote rates of supply of ice at the Chilling plant, which was changed and offers of the tenderers, regarding rates of the supply of ice ex-factory, were accepted, which is contrary to the earlier procedure set out by Respondent No.2. 3) The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners did not participate in the tender process for various reasons, one of which is that the tender notice was not advertised in widely circulated newspapers. 4) The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Shri Totla submits that this petition is being heard since last more than one year and numbers of times the matter was placed before the Court. The Counsel further submits that since the petitioners have not participated in the tender process, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the final decision of acceptance of tender and awarding of contract by the authorities. The learned Counsel has 3 pointed out that the identical issue was raised in Writ Petition No.3467/2008 and this Court (Coram: J.N.Patel and S.B.Deshmukh,JJ.) by order dated 20th June, 2008 dismissed the said writ petition. 5) Mr.Godsay counsel for the petitioner submits that a Review Petition is filed seeking review of the said order dated 20th June, 2008 passed in WP No. 3467/2008. 6) Learned AGP submits that the stand of the State is reflected in the affidavit in reply filed by Respondent No.2 which is on record. 7) These being contractual matters wherein this Court has limited scope in the facts of the case to exercise extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 8) Considering all these aspects of the matter and in view of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3467 of 2008 dated 20th June, 2008, we have to consider the issue. 9) Learned Counsel Shri Godsay fairly admits that the petitioners have not participated in the tender process and the petitioner is not interested in receiving the contract under the 4 tender, but he is interested to bring to the notice of this Court that by accepting the tender, which is in clear violation of the settled principles, the authorities have not acted bonafide. 10) Unfortunately the petitioners have not participated in the tender process, but the same does not preclude them to file a comprehensive representation before the higher authorities, like Secretary, Dairy Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. In case such a representation is filed, raising vital issues therein, the Secretary should look into the matter keeping in view that public interest is involved in such issues. 11) In the light of the facts stated herein above, as the tender process is already concluded and the contract under the tender is awarded, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. The petition stands dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H. PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/wp3468.08