1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5388 OF 2009 Savitribai Phule Mahila Bachat Gat, Osmanabad Through its member : Jyoti w/o.Satish Gaikwad, Age­30 years, Occu­Member of the Savitribai Phule Mahila Bachat Gat, Osmanabad, R/o.Near Dharasur Mardini Temple, Tuljapur Road, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Secretary, Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Director of National Rural Health Commission, National Rural Health Commission, Mumbai 3. The Deputy Director of Health, Divisional Information and Publicity Office, Latur, 4. The Civil Surgeon, District Civil Hospital, Osmanabad, 5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad RESPONDENTS Mr.P.M.Gaikwad, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned AGP for respondents. 2 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 18/08/2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays vide prayer clause “C” to the petition for issuance of a writ directing respondent no.4 to accept the tender of the petitioner for supplying a Tata Sumo vehicle for carrying out medical check up in the schools at Osmanabad. Vide prayer clause “D” to the petition, the petitioner prays for issuance of directions to restrain respondent no.4 from employing private individuals for the period for which the tender notice had been issued. 2. It appears that a tender notice came to be published on 22/07/2008 inviting tenders for carrying out the medical check up of the students in Osmanabad District by providing a vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo for a period of 11 months. Upon publication of the aforesaid tender notice, the petitioner as well as others submitted their tenders. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was the sole eligible tenderer and despite the petitioner being eligible, work order was not issued in favour of the petitioner. It appears that thereafter the entire process of tender came to be scrapped and a fresh tender notice came to be issued for the aforesaid period in August 2008. Their again the petitioner participated in the tender and despite the petitioner being eligible, according to the petitioner, the work order 3 was not issued to the petitioner. According to the petitioner the respondents instead of inviting tenders have employed private individuals for carrying out the medical check up for which the tender was issued and has therefore merely prayed for the said reliefs to which he had adverted. 3. The petitioner can not pray for issuance of a writ of directing the respondents to accept the tender of the petitioner particularly when the tender process has been scrapped by the respondents. There is no legally enforceable right in the petitioner to seek for the said relief which is prayed for. Similarly if the respondents are employing private individuals for carrying out the medical check up camp, this Court can not issue a writ directing them to issue tender notice particularly in the light of the fact that this is not a public interest litigation, but it is a petition filed at the instance of one of the tenderer to whom the contract has not been awarded. In the light of what had been stated, we do not find merit in the petition and the petition is therefore summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/AUGUST 2009/wp5388­09