(^ ^- f-ero BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARF. ATBILASPUR WRTTPETITION (C1 N0. ^6 C> /2007 PETITIONER ^armindar Singh Hora, S/o. Late Amrit Singh Hora, Aged about 4'^years, Director-M/s.Hora Transport Pvt. R/o. A-I, Sainagar, Deyeridra Nag Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPQNDNENTS 1 /" State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Food 8s Civi SuppEes, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ralpur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Through Mariaging Director, Nutan 'Rice Mffl Campus, 880 Civil Lines, Ram Sagarpara, Raipur The CoUeetor, Raipur (C.G.) //' PETITION UNDER ARTICLB226 OF THE CONSTlTUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANeE OF AN APPROPSIATE WJRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS. eERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER UKE NATURE ETC. --—' The petitioner most humbly and respectfulty begs to submit as under :- V-. t,. • ^: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHAniSGARH : BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH -CORAM: HON'BLESHRIH.L.DATTU.CJ. HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. PETITIONER RESPONCCNTS W.P.NQ. 260 OF 2007 Harmindar Singh Hora Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Present: Shri Kishore Bhadun', counsel forthe petitloner. Shri N.K. Agrawal, Dy. Advocate General, forthe respondents / State. ORALORDER (Pass^on 19'" February, 2007) The fbllowing oral order of the Court was passed by H.L. Dattu: CJ. Petitioner claims that he is a successful bidder in a tender floated by respondent No.2 for transportation of food grains i.e. paddy ete. from the.collection centers of Food Corporation Depot. (2) PetiUoner alleges that during subsistenee of the contract, respondents had directed the petitioner to lift 6,04,057 quintals of paddy from different centere within three days namely 28/12/2006,29/12/2006 & 30/12/2006. Further case of the petitioner is that, within a short time that was granted to the petitioner, he could not lift theabove quantities of paddy which the respondents had directed the petitioner to do. Therefore, pstitioner is befbre us, interaBa seeking the following rellefe: ^SflSiEBa'H**^^"^^"^^^^ ^- 10 u "(O To quashorderfletterdatod 28.12.2006 (Annaxure P/6). (ii) To direct the respondents not to inttiate any steps detrimental to the psUtioner's interest without afFordtng any opportunity of hearing to the psUtioner." (3) In our view, the petition so filed by the highsst bidder is not maintainable before us. The allegaCon made In the pefition is thatof breach <af contract said to have been committed by the respondente. If that be so, petftioner can deflnitely approach a Civfl Court for appropriate relisf. Factual dispute raised by ttie petitioner in the writ petition requires adjudicatton and the same can be resoh/ed only by a Cwil Court after recording Uw evkience ofparties. (4) In view <rf ttie above, we are not indined to entertain this petiUon. Accordfngly, this pettt'on is dismissed. However, libwty is reserved to the pefitioner to approach an appropriate forum for redressat of his grievance. Qrdered accordingty. J s&'- ChiefJustice Su'- V.K. Shfivastdva ^ u