Rii'esh Kri na Agraml, 5/0 Shri KK Agrmal, aged abouf 33 ears, R/o 5-9, Ring Road-1, Pridarshani Colony, R ipur (C6) Chairman & CEO Raghav Limifed. L_ Shri Vinny Harif, learned Dy. Advoca‘re Genera! for The Sfa're/respondenfs No. 1 & 2. The pefifioner is aggrieved y the publica'rion of fender notice dated 10.7.2009 (Annexure P/8 , whereby The Raipur Municipal of Corpomfion has published N T for award of work ins'ralla'tion/upgradaTion/main‘renan of ATS/Blinkers and CCTV Camera in T .RE5PONDENTS 1. 'S‘l’ale of Chha‘H‘isgarh, Through-the Seare'rary, Deparfmen of Home, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Ch affisgarh. 2. Superinfe en‘l' of Police, Raipur’, Dis‘l'f. kaipur (CG) 3. Municipal Corporoiion, Raipur, Thmtgh Cominissio er, Raipur, Gihmfisgwh. 4. Execufive ngineer, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, v Dis‘H‘. Raip r (CG) 24.7.2009: 5hri TK Tiwari, learned coun l for ‘rhe pefifioner. mm m zoo mm (WE) .amwm WW Wm WWW $aifmm L Monicipal area on BOT basis, and has prayed for direction To The respondents No. 3 & 4 1'0 call back 'rlhe above advertisement Shri T.l(. Tiwari, learned c sel for ‘rhe pe'ri'rioner submits that responden'l No.2-1he Superin‘rend 1' of Police, Raipur vide his leffer ‘ da1ed 18.8.2008 had given no objec ion To 'rhe proposal of fhe pa-rifioner, whereby he had proposed for ins? lotion of smart looking control booth ATS/Blinkers, C.C.T.V. etc. in Raipu city and maintenance of the same at his own cost on BOT basis. Af er acceptance of the proposal, the petitioner installed the traffic si booths at main places of Raipur city by investing Rs.6°lacs. The Superin endent of Police also sent a letter to the respondent No.3 regarding the work of the petitioner vide Annexure However, respondent No.3‘ communicated its objection‘to the proposal of the petitioner vide lett r dated 4.4.2009 of Annexure P/7 to the respondent No.2 and thereafte , they issued impugned tender notice and invited offers for the wo which the petitioner had already undertaken in the city of Raip . In these circumstances, suitable directions, as prayed by the petitio r, may be issued to the respondents. We have heard learned cou sel for the petitioner and perused various communications annexed w the petition. i From perusal of the documerts annexed with the petition, we find lthat there is no concluding contrbct between the petitioner and the P/5. i i i o n g l r u i ‘ :‘y XI-Hc—Js Wm . m zoo mm (Wu) 3m mm: mummy! g WW wm ammm aaaimarém respbnden‘rs conferring any sen' blame of legal right much iess consfifufional right for chiming The right To confinue The work of ins1'allnfion/upgradaTion/moinfenonw of ATS/Blinkers and CCTV Camera in Municipal area on BOT basis, for which the impugned fender nofice of l Annexure P/8 has been published. We find no subs'rance in fhis pe‘iifion: fhe same deserves *ro be dismissed a1 the admission siege itself and is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequen'rly. IA No.01, application for inferim relief, also stands I disposed of. \ l Sd/I l $aif-- . Dhirendra Mishra / ll RN. Chms’mkar ; ”l Judge / / Judge g l l xx