‘6 L£ Hlgji QQQRI "QF JUnDLCAnTUnRE CtltiATllSQARH: BILA§PLJR { SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, W.P.No.1 586 of 2005 PETlTl0NER Vijay Kumar Kedia, son of Late Shri about Lakshman Prasad Kedia, aged about 34 years, resident of Pendra Rcad, District Bilaspur‘(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Chhattisgarh State Civil SuppHes 'the Corporation Ltd., through Managing Director, Raipur. The District Manager, Chhattiagarh State Civii Supplies Corporation Ltd.; Bilaepur 3. Juber Ahmed, son of Shri Atique resident Ahmed, aged about 44 years, resident Pendra about 44 years, resident of Road, District Biiaspur. Pendra 4. Sudhir Sahu, resident of Road, District Bilaspur. W.P.No.2218 of 2005 PETITIONER Hariram Agrawai S/o Satyanarayan 65 Agrawal, Aged about 65 years, Occupation- BusinessfTransporter, District Rlo Chhai Road, Gharghoda, Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Principal, Secretary, Civii 5: Food Suppiies, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh Civil Supplies, Corporation, Through : Managing Dii'ector, Bal Ashram Parisar, Katchari Chowk Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Chhattisgarh Civil Supplies, Corporation, Through : Manager, Civil Supplies Offlce, District Raigarh (C.G.) Safi Mohammad S/o Not known, Occupation —‘ Transporter, R/o Ambikapur, District Surguja (C..G,) 5. Ramesh Agrawal S/o now known, \uV\ Occupation — Transporter. Rio Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) ‘ 6. Chandrabhan Agrawal S/o Not known Occupation — Transporter, Rio. Wiage — Lailunga, Tahsil —— Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) Present: shri Shaiiendra Shukia. ieamed counsel for the petitioner (WP. No. 1586 of 2005). $hri Amit Sharma, learned counsel for theapetitioner (WP No. 2218 of 2005) Shri 'kishor Bhaduri, learned counsel for the reepbndents No. 3 & 4 (W.P.No. 1586/20m5). Shri Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 (WP. No. 2218 of 2005)‘ Shri VR. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents/Civil Supplies. Shri Yashwant Singh, learned G. A. for the State. ORAL ORDER rPasseEIZ’rTEFY June‘, zoos) ln these writ petitions, the complaint of the petitioners is that though the bid offered by them was the lowest, contract was not awarded to them. These writ petitions have become infructuous. The term of the contract itself expired on 31-03~2006. At this distance of time, no effective relief could be granted to the petitioners. Moreover, it is not the law that the lowest bidders should always prefer in the matter of awarding contracts. Such a right in trie petitioners cannot be i culled out from the tender documents. These writ petitions are, therefore.dismissed. No costs. l i‘r’”‘/'/ Sd/. ChiEf JustjCel kayak i