Bombay High CourtWP/7373/2014dispossed offdismiss for default

Dinesh S/O Ghanshyamdas Bhutada, Proprietor Of M/S B.B. Coatings And Chemicals, Nagpur v. The Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministy Of Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises, New Delh

2016-12-14Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi1 pages

1 wp7373.14.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.7373 OF 2014 [Dinesh s/o Ghanshyamdas Bhutada .vs. The Union of India and others] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Rohit Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.4. ..........

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : DECEMBER 14, 2016.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the pre-qualification conditions in the tender notice, dated 20.11.2014, as bad in law.

It appears, on a perusal of the writ petition, that though a notice was issued to the respondents by the order, dated 26.12.2014, no interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on the said date or even thereafter. The contract period, as per the tender notice, appears to be two years till the completion of the supply of the material. It appears that the cause for filing the writ petition must have been rendered infructuous due to passage of time. The petitioner is free to take recourse to an appropriate remedy available in law, if so advised. The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. The points raised in the petition are kept open. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande, PA