2026:BHC-AUG:41192-DB {1} ca9763-26.doc drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9763 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9646 OF 2024 ShriShri Infrastructure Private Limited Through Its Authorized Director PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. G. K. Naik Thigale, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGP for Respondent - State Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for Respondent No ....… WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2538 OF 2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7718 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10189 OF 2026 WITH SUO MOTO (CP) NO. 2 OF 2024 [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.] DATE : 4 th SEPTEMBER, 2026 ORDER : 1. Affidavit in reply is filed by the Executive Engineer, to the Civil Application, filed by the Petitioner seeking amendment of {2} ca9763-26.doc the Writ Petition. In paragraph No. 7 of the said affidavit, following statements are made : “7. I say that, the answering respondent has considered the technical difficulty of the need for a revised sanction, the requirement for the said road and the report of the Vigilance Committee and arrived at a conclusion that the tender will be recalled and fresh tender will be issued in 30 days. Considering all the aspects thus, in view of the above the Civil Application and Writ Petition be disposed.”

2. In the light of the above statements, nothing survives in the Writ Petition. Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of. 3. Learned Advocate for intervenor, added Respondent No.6, strenuously opposed disposal of the Writ Petition contending that he was the lowest bidder and his bid was accepted and, therefore, the Respondents are acting hand in glove with the Petitioner and hence they cannot unilaterally recall the tender and issue fresh tender. 4. We do not find any merit in the said submission. It is for the authorities to take decision in that behalf and since they have taken decision to recall the earlier tender and issue fresh tender and as two years’ period is passed since floating of the tender, we do not find any merit in the said submission. 5. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, all the pending Civil {3} ca9763-26.doc Applications are disposed of. 6. Leave to add names of the contemnors party respondents in the Suo Motu Contempt Petition No. 2 of 2024. Amendment be carried out within four weeks. 7. List the Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.2 of 2024 on 23rd October, 2026. [ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE JUDGE drp/ca9763-26.doc

2026:BHC-AUG:41192-DB {1} ca9763-26.doc drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9763 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9646 OF 2024 ShriShri Infrastructure Private Limited Through Its Authorized Director PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. G. K. Naik Thigale, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGP for Respondent - State Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for Respondent No ....… WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2538 OF 2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7718 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10189 OF 2026 WITH SUO MOTO (CP) NO. 2 OF 2024 [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.] DATE : 4 th SEPTEMBER, 2026 ORDER : 1. Affidavit in reply is filed by the Executive Engineer, to the Civil Application, filed by the Petitioner seeking amendment of {2} ca9763-26.doc the Writ Petition. In paragraph No. 7 of the said affidavit, following statements are made : “7. I say that, the answering respondent has considered the technical difficulty of the need for a revised sanction, the requirement for the said road and the report of the Vigilance Committee and arrived at a conclusion that the tender will be recalled and fresh tender will be issued in 30 days. Considering all the aspects thus, in view of the above the Civil Application and Writ Petition be disposed.”

2. In the light of the above statements, nothing survives in the Writ Petition. Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of. 3. Learned Advocate for intervenor, added Respondent No.6, strenuously opposed disposal of the Writ Petition contending that he was the lowest bidder and his bid was accepted and, therefore, the Respondents are acting hand in glove with the Petitioner and hence they cannot unilaterally recall the tender and issue fresh tender. 4. We do not find any merit in the said submission. It is for the authorities to take decision in that behalf and since they have taken decision to recall the earlier tender and issue fresh tender and as two years’ period is passed since floating of the tender, we do not find any merit in the said submission. 5. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, all the pending Civil {3} ca9763-26.doc Applications are disposed of. 6. Leave to add names of the contemnors party respondents in the Suo Motu Contempt Petition No. 2 of 2024. Amendment be carried out within four weeks. 7. List the Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.2 of 2024 on 23rd October, 2026. [ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE JUDGE drp/ca9763-26.doc