wp10961.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10961 OF 2010 1) Sk. Farooq Sk. Ibrahim, R/o-Zamzam Colony, Beed, 2) Mohd. Isa Mohd. Ismail, R/o-Ravivar Peth, Beed, Dist-Beed, 3) Sk. Wali s/o Sk. Pasha, R/o-Near BSNL Tower, Bashirganj Beed, Dist-Beed, 4) Khamis Rayees Bin Sairi, R/o-Old Bhaji Mandi, Beed, Dist-Beed. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Department of Cooperation, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, 2) The Liquidator & Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sinhagad Daal Mill Cooperative Society Ltd., Pohe Takli, Tq-Pathri, Dist-Parbhani, 3) Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Agricultural and Industrial (Recovery) Department, M.S.C. Bank Ltd. Benet House, Shahid Bhagatsingh Road, Fort, Mumbai, Through its Manager, wp10961.10 2 4) Authorised Officer & Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Pay Office, M.S.C. Bank Ltd., Plot No.180, Vasant Nagar, Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.N.B.Suryawanshi Advocate for Petitioners. Shri.S.V. Kurundkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri.S.B. Gorde Patil Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 24TH AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioners participated in tender bid in respect of sale of Sinhagad Dal Mill situated at Pohe Takli, Tq-Pathri, Dist-Parbhani. The Petitioners contention is that they were successful bidder and they deposited initial wp10961.10 3 amount of 25% and even forwarded the demand draft of remaining amount of 75% to the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 3. In substance, the contention of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is that the Petitioners failed to deposit 25% amount prior to 29th May, 2007 and demand draft of 75% amount was forwarded by the Petitioners directly to the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, which has not been en-cashed. Learned counsel for the Respondents, therefore, submits that the Petitioners have not complied with the conditions of tender by depositing the 25% amount in time and therefore, their tender is not accepted and acted upon. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are willing to negotiate with the Respondents and would also pay some more amount. wp10961.10 4 5. Learned counsel Shri. Gorde Patil for Respondents, on instructions, submits that the matter relates to contractual relationship between the parties and therefore no commitment on the proposal made by the learned counsel of the Petitioners could be made at this stage. 6. In the light of the submissions advanced, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the Petition. Leave granted. The Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/AUG11