LAW FOR ALL

Tenders - computerization of the 38 Octroi posts and Octroi Departments situated at various locations of the Municipal limits of Respondent No. 1 Corporation.= praying for setting aside the decision of Respondent No. 1 holding Respondent No. 2 qualified for Tender No. 1 Recall 2010 and further, direct Respondent No. 1 to award that contract under Tender No. 1 Recall 2010 to the Petitioner and not to award the contract under the said tender to Respondent No. 2. = Suffice it to observe that we are not at all impressed by the principal grounds on which the Petitioner expects this Court to interdict the tender process and the work order in question. It would have been a different matter if the Petitioner had substantiated at least one ground of non­ fulfillment of qualification criteria by the Respondent No.2, in which case, the Court could have passed suitable order and moulded the relief, keeping in mind the observation made in order dated 31 st March, Page 18 of 19 J.V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2013 19:02:06 :::Bombay High Court WP.1653.2011.Judgment.doc 2011 that, any action taken from the date of passing of the said order shall be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court. However, in the fact situation of the present case, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. 21) Hence, dismissed with no order as to costs.