1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. W. P. No. 3119 of 2008. The Nagpur District Labour Federation Co-operative Society and another V. The State of Maharashtra and 2 Others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri A. M. Ghare, Advocate with L. H. Kothari Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. T. D. Khade, AGP for Respondents no.1 to 3. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 1st December, 2008. 1. Petitioner is a federation of societies of Labour. 2. Petitioners' general grievance is that the respondents are not allotting to it for its members, the work in compliance with declared policy of State. Specific challenge is to the order/letter dated 15-4-2008 Annexure-H. 3. Petitioner has also made a general prayer (B), which reads as follows:- 2 “(B) Direct the Respondent NO.2 not to submit with the Petitioner Federation or with the Work Allotment Committee any work prior to obtaining Administrative and Technical sanction of the rates based on Divisional Schedule brought up to date.” [Quoted from page 14 of Writ Petition Paper Book] 4. In the body of petition foundation of prayer 'B' reads as follows :- “18............................................................. Some times the Respondent No.2 has given reason that the work allotted to Labour Co- operative Society is cancelled for want of technical sanction or on the ground that while rate revision the estimated rate has gone more than Rs.15.00 Lac. In fact, it is duty of the Work Allotment Committee's to first get the administrative and technical to the estimated rate determined on the basis of Divisional Schedule of rate brought up to date...............................................................” [Quoted from page 12 & 13 of the Writ Petition Paper Book.] 5. Petition has been replied by filing two affidavits of traverse. 3 6. The grievance about cancellation of allotment of work is dealt with by the respondents by replying is as follows:- (a) Offer was sent to Respondent No.1 in time. (b) It appears that Petitioner no.2 was allotted the work by Respondent No.1, however, Petitioner no.2 did not/could not approach the Respondent for execution of contract and for receiving work order within 15 days. (c) The communication of allotment by Petitioner no.1 to Petitioner no.2 was not made/did not reach to the respondents. (d) Allotment of work without seeking administrative approval is emphatically denied by the respondents. 7. There is no clarification or rejoinder to the respondents' reply from the petitioner, and therefore, there is no reason to create suspicion about correctness 4 thereof, and there is no warrant of seeking of any further clarification from the Respondent no.2. 8. In the result, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has failed to make out a case whatsoever to grant indulgence what-soever. 9. Petition has no merit, and is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/