HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARM AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV ©UPTA,CJ & HON'BLE SHRi SUNIL KUMAR StNHA, J. Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition (0 No. 706 of2008 Rajesh Shrivastava S/o Lt. H.B. Shrivastava aged about 44 years, occupation Proprietor Raja Sports R/o. Jamatpara, Rajnandgaon VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Education Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Offteer Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. Deepak Sports Through its proprietor, Circular Market Camp- 2 Bhilai - Durg (C.G.) WritPetitionunderArticle 226/227 QftheConstitytion^^ Present: Ms. Deepali Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, learned Advocate General with Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents No. 1 & 2 / State. ORDER >th (08m February, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission. (2) The petitioner has flled this writ petition for the foilowing reliefs: 7.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may klndiy be pleased to quash the tender passed In favour of the respondent No.3 being vitiated. 7.2 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct respondent No.1 enquiry and to inrtiate proceeding against the ofticiats concerned in the matter. 7.3 That, Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the cost of the petition to the petitioner with damages. 7.4 That, the Hon'ble Court be pieased to pass any other direction / order after evaluating the facts & grievances 6f the petitioner / villagers. (3) Shri Prashant Mishra, learned Advocate General has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that respondent No.3 has aiready executed the contract awarded to it and as such the petitioner's remedy now lies in filing a Civil Suit before the Civil Court for damages for the loss, if any, suffered by the petitioner on account of the act of respondents No. 1 & 2. (4) As the contract awarded to respondent No.3 now stands concluded, as submltted by the learned Advocate General, we are of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the writ petition. r—~n~ ''^--JL....,--^ (5) The writ petition, therefore, faiis and is hereby dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for damages for the loss, if any, suffered by the petitioner. Sd/- Chief Justice Subbu Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge