:1: :1: :1: srp. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 5994 of 2008. WRIT PETITION No. 5994 of 2008. WRIT PETITION No. 5994 of 2008. Dr. Sadhana V. Phatarpekar. ..Petitioner. Versus. City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd & Anr. ..Respondents. --- Mr. N. R. Bubna for the petitioner. Mr. A. M. Kulkarni for the respondents. CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2009. DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2009. DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the period of agreement is 10 years and after the said period of 10 years the CIDCO is supposed to extend the period of lease after having found that the performance of the petititioner is satisfactory and unless that exercise is done, the CIDCO cannot go for new tenders. We are not impressed by this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, because the CIDCO has the pwoer to call for the tenders. 2. Learned counsel for the CIDCO states that till the period of lease, i.e., upto 30th April 2009 they will :2: :2: :2: not disposess the petitioner. Admittedly, the activities were not carried out by the petitioner upto 2002 even though the agreement is of the year 1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that certain amounts are due from the respondents. The claim for those amount from the CIDCO is a different aspect. Petitioner may take appropriate stpes for that. But not providing of the facility as per the object of the agreement, for which the agreement was entered into is not justifiable. Taking into consideration the overall view of the matter we are not inclined to entertain the matter. Petition is rejected. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)