17. wp 2461-98.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2461 OF 1998 Pankaj Doshi, adult, Hindu Indian ] Inhabitant, carrying on business in the firm ] name and style of M/s. Deepak Electric Works ] at 6, Navswapna Ranjan Dixit Cross Road No. 1] Vile Parle (E), Mumbai - 400 057. ] Petitioner Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, to be served ] through Addl. Government Pleader High ] Court, Mumbai. ] 2. Chief Engineer (Electrical), ] Public Works Department, ] Government of Maharashtra, 3rd Floor, ] Rationing Office Premises, R.C. Marg, ] Chembur, Mumbai. ] 3. Superintending Engineer, ] Pune Electrical Circle, ] Public Works Department, Pune. ] 4. Executive Engineer, ] Thane Electric Division, ] Public Works Department, Station Road, ] Thane. ] 1 17. wp 2461-98.doc 5. M/s. M R M Electric Service, ] 219, Habib Terrace, B Block, Room No. 14 ] Old Agra Road, Kurla, Mumbai - 400 070. ] Respondents None for the Petitioner Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ DATE : 8th NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the award of contract of providing electricity installation to the main building and workshop at Government Polytechnic, Malvan, Dist. Sindhudurg in pursuance of Tender Notice No. 17/97-98 in favour of respondent no. 5. 2. From the record, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be that though the petitioner's offer was 4.1% below the estimated value of the work, the contract was awarded to the contractors including respondent no. 5 whose offers were much above the estimated value of the work. 3. From the affidavit-in-reply, it appears that the petitioner did not specify whether his offer was 4.1% below the estimated cost or above the estimated cost. According to the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner approached respondent no. 3 and stated that 2 17. wp 2461-98.doc he has forgotten to specify whether his offer was 4.1% above the estimated cost or below the estimated cost and that the petitioner's offer should be read as 4.1% above the estimated cost. It appears that respondents rejected the offer of the petitioner on the ground that the aforesaid request of the petitioner would change the rates and the rate offered by him is at variance with the offer. 4. In the petition, the averments made in paragraph 7 are exactly opposite to what the petitioner appears to have been stated to the respondent. In the petition, the petitioner stated that the offer is 4.1% below the estimated value of the work whereas the petitioner appears to have requested the respondent to read his rate as 4.1% above the estimated cost. The matter involved several disputed questions of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, they cannot be determined properly in writ jurisdiction. In the circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J ] [ S.A. BOBDE, J ] 3 17. wp 2461-98.doc 4