M/S. R.B. Contractors, A Proprietor Concern Thr Proprietor Shri Ramraoji B Girolkar, Yavatmal v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Secretary Public Works Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai

1602wp921.16.odt 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 921 OF 2016 (M/s R. B. Contractors Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S. D. Harode, Advocate for the petitioners. Smt. B. H. Dangre, Govt. Pleader for R-1 to R-3. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATED : 16 FEBRUARY, 2016 The petitioner has approached this Court contending therein that the respondents have invited the tender for repairs of the road, which was already repaired by the petitioner in the year 2012. In an earlier round of litigation also the petitioner has approached this Court contending the same fact. However, it was informed to the Court that the tender was already cancelled and as such the earlier petition was disposed of.

The petitioner has now contended that again for the said road fresh tenders are invited.

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, states that the work, which was executed by the petitioner in the year 2012, was for repairs of the road for which an amount of Rs.1.30 crore is already paid to the petitioner.

1602wp921.16.odt 2/2 It is submitted that the tenders, which were now issued, are for widening of the said road from the funds, which are made available from the Central Road Fund. It is further submitted that the tender notice was issued in the month of September, 2015 and the Work Order is already issued to the successful bidder. It could thus be seen that the contention of the petitioner that the tenders are issued for the same work, which was already carried out by him, is without substance. In that view of the matter, the petition is without any merit.

Writ petition is dismissed.

JUDGE JUDGE wwl