Case: Marathwada Rakh Upyogit Udyojak Sahakari Audhyogik Sansthan Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary of Energy Department &amp; Others

2. Petitioners claim is asr is a) It is a society formed by Small Scale Industries using fly ash as the raw material.(c) It had entered into a consortium arrangement with private enterprises and had offered bid for said consortium for purchase of fly ash from respondent No.2 at Parali Vaijnath.(d) In all 3 bidders had become successful in qualification for consideration of price bid.(e) The price bid of respondent No.9 was highest.(f) As per the provisions contained in the tender document, respondent No.2 called upon other 2 qualified participants having their bid low in value, including the petitioner, to express willingness, to match the price bid with that of the highest bidder i.e. the bid of the Respondent No.9.(g) Petitioner concurred to offer the same price.(h) The respondent No.2 prepared and submitted an office note and submitted it to higher authorities. In the said note, the respondent No.2 proposed to allot 400 MT per day volume of fly ash to respondent No.9 and 200 MT per day each to Adventure Processing Company and the petitioner.(i) The proposal of respondent No.2 was not conceded to by the Director (Operations) and rather he proposed to allot 750 MT per day fly ash to respondent No.9, out of estimated volume of 1000 MT per day.(j) The proposal made by Director Operations) to allot 750 MT per day fly ash to the respondent No.9 is approved by the Managing Director.(k) Said decision of the Managing Director, the respondent No.3 is challenged in this petition.

Court's reasoning:
8. In the present case, the claim of the petitioner is not based on any enforceable legal right or any right accruing from any policy which binds the respondent Nos. 2 to 8, or from any commitment made by the respondents that particular volume of the said byproduct i.e. fly ash must be supplied to the petitioner.9. Petitioners claim is seen to be based on its expectations and desirability, which is sheerly one sided matter and there is no involvement of the respondents. The claim is thus based barely on desire and expectation than on right and reciprocal obligation.10. In so far as the allegations of malafides are concerned, the malafides as pleaded in the petition are bare and bald and are made without any factual foundation and in the nature of inference than any tangible material, and are barely apprehensions and suggestions.11. It is not shown that theine buyer as a manufacturer of some product and petitioners claim is based on genuine business needs as regards fly ash as an input. Petitioners right to trade has to be recognized, however his claim appears to be that of a trader as a middle man or as an exchanger than one who demands for own consumption.12. Therefore this Court is satisfied that petitioner has not made out any case for grant of indulgence.