IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1217 of 2011 Date of Decision : January 21, 2011. Surjit Lal .....Petitioner versus Punjab State Cooperative Supply Marketing Federation Limited and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sandeep K.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.H.S.Brar, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr.H.S.Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Let three copies of the writ petition be handed over to learned counsel for the respondents during the course of day. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.2.2010 (Annexure P-4) whereby the Markfed has approved the labour contract @ 28% and above for Nawanshahr Mandi for the year 2009-2010. The petitioner is a Contractor to whom the labour contract has been awarded in C.W.P.No .1217 of 2011 2 the aforesaid Mandi and while awarding so, the District Managers of the Markfed, Punsup, Punjab Agro, Warehouse, F.C.I. and Pungrain persuaded him to accept the work contract with an assurance that the rate contract would be 75% excess to the basic rate. This fact is apparent from the proceedings sent by the District Office of the Markfed vide Annexure P-2. The petitioner's grievance appears to be that the lower rate approved by the Head Office would render the contract unviable causing loss to him. The aforesaid grievance has been expressed by the petitioner before the authorities vide representations dated 24.2.2010 and 30.3.2010 (Annexures P-5 & P-7, respectively) as well as the legal notice dated 24.6.2010 (Annexure P-9). It appears that the view point given by the petitioner vide the aforesaid representations/legal notice, has not been taken into consideration by the respondent-authorities so far. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the same with a direction to the Managing Director of the Markfed to consider and dispose of the above-mentioned claim of the petitioner objectively in the light of the recommendations made by the District Managers and pass an appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. January 21, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE