1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6202 OF 2009 Uday s/o Sahebrao Doifode, R/o-B-3-021, Mayur Park, Harsul, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) Trough its Chief Engineer (Civil), MSRTC, 'Wahatuk Bhavan' Dr.Anandrao Nayak Marg, Opp. Mumbai Central Railway Station, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008, 2) The Regional Manager, M.S.R.T.C., Near CIDCO Bus Station, CIDCO, Aurangabad, 3) The Executive Engineer, M.S.R.T.C., Near CIDCO Bus Station, CIDCO, Aurangabad, 4) The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Aurangabad Division, Samarth Nagar, CBS Road, Aurangabad, 5) The Deputy Director, M.S.R.T.C., Samarth Nagar, CBS Road, Aurangabad, 2 6) M/s. Arbaz Constructions, Civil Contractor, Azam Colony, Roshan Gate, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.M.N. Navandar Advocate for Petitioner. Smt.R.D. Reddy Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Shri.J.H. Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent No.6. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.U. CHANDWAL, JJ. DATE : 10TH DECEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The main contention of the Petitioner is that condition under the head "special attention" was not complied with by Respondent No.6. The Respondent No.6 was awarded the contract under the tender who had submitted the tender document along with Demand Draft instead of AG-12 receipts as per 'special attention' note put up by the Respondent MSRT Corporation. It was further submitted that 3 the Demand Draft was encashed after lapse of considerable time though the tender document was submitted earlier, which is violation of the tender condition. 3. The Respondent M.S.R.T. Corporation filed affidavit in reply. The counsel appearing for Corporation submitted that Respondent No.6 was awarded this contract who had submitted the tender form along with Demand Draft and likewise there were other applicants along with Respondent No.6 who had submitted their tender forms with the Demand Drafts instead of AG-12 receipts. The counsel further submitted that 'special attention' is not the main or substantial condition affecting the terms of the tender and the contract. On instructions, it was submitted that the work under the contract is on the verge of completion. 4. The learned counsel for Respondent No.6 submitted that he had already started the work and it is on the verge of completion. 4 5. We have perused the 'special attention' clause and the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent Corporation. We are convinced with the stand adopted by the Respondent Corporation that acceptance of tender forms along with Demand Draft by the Respondent Corporation was not breach of the substantial tender clauses and conditions. The counsel appearing for the Respondents made a statement that the work under the contract is already started and it is on the verge of completion. For all these reasons and the circumstances mentioned above, no interference is called for in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The Writ Petition is dismissed. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/DEC09/wp6202.09