(1.) By way of this petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the common petitioner herein Hindustan Projects has prayed for appropriate writ, direction and / or order to quash and set aside the entire tender process with respect to contracts in question. The common petitioner Hindustan Projects has also prayed for appropriate writ, direction and order directing the respondent authorities to open the bid of the petitioner and to quash and set aside the action of the respondent no.2 in disqualifying the petitioner and to allot the tender and to allot the work orders / contract in favour of respondent no.3 herein.
(2.) At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner is registered partnership firm and the present petitions have been preferred by the petitioner partnership firm through its Authoirized Officer one Shri Lakhman Dahyabhai Barad. Therefore, as such present petitions have been filed neither by any of the partners of the partnership firm nor the power of attorney holder of the partners of the partnership firm. In view of the above, the preliminary objection which is raised by Shri Dagli, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 with respect to the maintainability of the present petitions by the petitioners partnership firm through Shri Lakhman Dahyabhai Barad and challenging the locus of the aforesaid Shri Lakhman Dahyabhai Barad to prefer the present petition for and on behalf of the partnership firm.
(3.) Shri Dagli, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 has vehemently submitted that admittedly petitioner Hindustan Projects is a partnership firm. The present petitions are not filed by any of the partners of the partnership firm. Present petitions are filed by the partnership firm through its authorized officer Shri Lakhman Dahyabhai Barad who as such has no locus to file the petitions on behalf of the petitioner partnership firm. It is submitted that the said Shri Lakhman Dahyabhai Barad is not a power of attorney holder of the partnership firm / partnership firm.