SANDIPAN SARJERAO PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior counsel Mr. Hon and Mr. Jarare, learned counsel for the respective petitioners and also heard Mr. Kale, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned counsel Mr. Suryawanshi for respondent No. 5 who is present before the Court.

(2.) The respondent No. 4 though duly served but nobody appeared on behalf of it. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the bids invited under the impugned notice are to be opened today itself. However, both of them pointed out that one similar petition bearing Writ Petition No. 6257 of 2017 is already pending in this Court wherein by order dtd. 4/5/2017, this Court (Coram : R. M. Borde and K. L. Wadane, JJ) had directed that the tender process initiated as mentioned in that petition at the instance of concerned respondent No. 5 may proceed, but the letter of acceptance of the bids should not be issued.

(3.) The learned AGP pointed out that since the respondent No. 4 is already restricted by the aforesaid order, there is no propriety in granting similar order in this petition for fresh tender. It appears that despite the earlier order dtd. 4/5/2017 in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 6257 of 2017 again fresh tenders are invited at this stage by respondent No. 4.