1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6770 OF 2009 Avinash Vitthal Shinde, Age: Major, Occ: Contractor, Residing at Yashwant Nagar, Ahmednagar and another. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS Union of India, Through the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Sardar Patel Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. P.B. Shirsath, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for Union of India- Respondent No. 1. Shri. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Shri. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.4. .... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 1ST JULY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners claim that under the Member 2 of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme, they performed some work and bill is not paid. The work order was issued in favour of petitioner No.2. 3. Affidavit in reply is filed by Dr. P. Anbalgan, District Collector, Ahmednagar. The deponent has contended in Para. Nos. 8 and 9 as under : "8. I say and submit that thereafter the respondent No.2 has informed the office of the depondent by letter dated 5.3.2009 to stop the work which are mentioned in annexure of the said letter and also informed to stop the work which are already in progress. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT R-2 is copy of the said letter dated 5.3.2009 alongwith its annexure. 9. I say and submit that, therefore, in pursance of the said letter dated 5.3.2009 issued by the respondent No.2, 3 the depondent has cancelled earlier administrative sanction granted in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the said decision is communicated to the authorities of the Z.P. i.e. Respondent No.4. Hereto annexed and marked EXHIBIT R-3 is copy of the order dated 6.3.2009 issued by the deponent regarding cancellation of earlier administrative sanction orders." 4. Learned A.G.P. submits that the work was stopped by the communication dated 05-03-2009. 5. Serious disputes are raised in respect of allotment of work. In this view of the matter and in the facts of the case, we do not find that this is a fit case to entertain in our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is disposed of. The petitioners may resort to alternative remedy as permissible in law. 4 6. All issues are kept open. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] SUT/JUL10/wp6770.09