(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4324 OF 1998 1. Shri Dilip Pandurang Pangaonkar, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, Resident of Canteen Worker, Resident of Chitra Talkies, Ahmednagar, District : Ahmednagar. 2. Vishwnath Sukhdeo Thange, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture, Resident of 7528, Belhekar Wada, Tange Galli, Nalegaon, Ahmednagar, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Chief Officer, Nashik Housing and Area Development Board, Nashik, Grihanirman Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik. 3. The Estate Manager, Nashik Housing and Area Development Board, Nashik, Grihanirman Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik. 4. Chairman, Nashik Housing and Area Development Board, Nashik, Grihanirman Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.H. Dighe, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. None for respondent nos.2 to 4. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 30TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) : 1. The petitioners claim that they had applied for the allotment of plots pursuant to the tender issued on 8-10-1992 by the respondent no.2. It is the contention of the petitioners, that tenders were opened on 4-12-1992 and the petitioners were the highest bidders. According to them, no further steps were taken by the officers concerned and on 24-10-1994, the said tenders came to be cancelled. The petitioners made representation to the Chairman of the Board and according to the petitioners, the Chairman or the officers of the Board did not consider the representation. (3) 2. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that as the petitioners were the highest bidders, they ought to have been allotted the plots. The plots, in question, were small plots. 3. It is a fact that the plots were not allotted to the petitioners. No contractual relation is created between the parties. As no jural relationship exists, the petitioners have no vested legal right. As the petitioners do not have any legal right, inter alia, cannot claim that injury has been caused to them. However, the petitioners may apply afresh and the authorities may consider the application of the petitioners in accordance with law. 4. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Needless to state, that the interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp4324