ssp 1 PIL 44 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.44 OF 2010 Harakchand Manikchand Khabia .....Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Niranjan P. Shimpi, for the petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.R.S.Apte, Senior Advocate i/by Mr.M.V.Limaye, for respondent No.4. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 25th FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed that appropriate inquiry may be made in the tender notice issued by the respondent-Corporation which is published on 08-01-2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was no question of issuing tender notice, as there was no work which is to be undertaken. It is not in dispute that petitioner himself had purchased the tender form. The grievance of the petitioner is that since no work was required to be done, no further steps are required to be done and no further notice on the basis of tender notice is required to be issued. Many persons have purchased tender forms. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that tender ssp 2 PIL 44 of 2010 notice was given in respect of 18 items and since there was urgency regarding five items, the work was carried out without inviting tenders and regarding 13 items, tender was invited. In this connection, it was pointed out that Under Secretary, State of Maharashtra, vide his letter communication dated 29-07-2010, has informed the District Collector, Pune, that the Collector should examine the issue in question and may consider as to whether post-facto sanction can be given for regularizing the works in question. 3. In view of this, nothing further is required to be done in the matter. However, if any application is made by the petitioner before the Collector for allowing to prosecute concerned Officer, it is for the Collector to take appropriate decision one way or other. However, such decision may be taken expeditiously and in accordance with law and on merits, we are not expressing any opinion on the same. 4. In view of what is stated above, Public Interest Litigation is disposed of. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )