:1: :1: :1: srp. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 414 OF 2009. WRIT PETITION NO. 414 OF 2009. WRIT PETITION NO. 414 OF 2009. Kam-Avida Enviro Engineers Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioners. Versus. The Municipal Corporation of Solapur & Another. ..Respondents. --- Mr. D. J. Bhanage for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin Jamdar for the respondent no.1. 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 26, 2009. DATE: February 26, 2009. DATE: February 26, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed challenging the tender being offered to respondent no.2 in view of the tender notice dated 16/6/2006. 2. Petitioner is one of the participant in the tender process. Now the petitioner prays that the decision of the respondent no.1 not to accept the tender of the petitioner be quashed and set aside and that the tender of the petitioner be accepted. Both these steps are over and the tender has already been given to the respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that already the Sweeper Trucks to be supplied under the said tender have been suppled by the respondent no.2. Thus not only :2: :2: :2: the contract is given to the respondent no.2, but the respondent no.2 has already executed the contract by supplying the goods. Under these circumstances, none of the prayers made in the petition can be granted by this Court. 3. Apart from that the tender process has taken place in June 2008 while the petitioner has been filed in December 2008 and today it is being placed before this Court for the first time. All this delay, latches and lethargy on the part of the petitioner is self-explanatory which persuades this Court not to entertain the petition on the point of the delay and latches itself. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon AIR-2007 SC 119, in the matter of Noble Resources Ltd. v/s. State of Orissa & Anr. We have gone through the judgment. We find that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the said judgment is not applicable. 5. Taking overall view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the petition, petition is hereby rejected. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)