IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16627 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.9.2010 Ashok Kumar ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks mandamus to the respondents including District Manager, PUNGRAIN-respondent No.10 to declare the result of tenders invited vide notice dated 26.8.2010, Annexure P-6. 2. Case of the petitioner is that tenders were invited for the work of transportation and labour carriage of grains in March, 2010 but the said process was not finalized. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 30.6.2010 with a direction to take decision on the representation. In compliance with the said direction, decision was taken to invite fresh tenders. Accordingly, fresh tenders were invited, in response to which the petitioner applied. As per notified schedule, the tenders were to be opened on 7.9.2010, but the same were not opened nor any date was fixed. CWP No. 16627 of 2010 -2- 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that action of the respondents is arbitrary. Though the petitioner filed representation dated 9.9.2010, Annexure P-13, but the matter was not being finalized. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Even though the schedule may have been notified as stated on behalf of the petitioner, mere fact that the tenders were not opened as per the said schedule cannot give rise to a grievance unless the petitioner is denied consideration or contract is awarded illegally or arbitrarily. 6. In view of above, this petition is premature at this stage and is disposed of as such. It is made clear that this order will not stand in way of the petitioner in pursuing his representation in accordance with law. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 16, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE