C.W.P. No. 15266 of 2011 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 15266 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.8.2011 Manoj Kumar ..Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. J. P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal, J. The petitioner has approached this court praying for quashing the tender notice dated 2.8.2011 issued by Municipal Committee, Ateli Mandi for laying of interlocking tiles at different places and further for a direction for issuance of a fresh tender. As an interim measure, a prayer has been made for staying further proceedings arising out of the tender notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of notification dated 29.3.2007, preferential treatment was required to be given to Cooperative Labour and Construction Societies for award of contracts. In the present case, the petitioner, being a Cooperative Labour and Construction Society, was totally ignored. He further submitted that even a representation was made to Deputy Commissioner and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narnaul but no action was taken. However, learned counsel for the petitioner was candid in saying that on the date fixed for C.W.P. No. 15266 of 2011 [ 2] opening of tenders, i.e., 8.8.2011, the work had been allotted to the private respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. The present petition has been filed challenging the tender notice and further for direction for issuance of a fresh tender notice. It is undisputed that in terms of the tender notice, the work has already been allotted to the contractors which, according to the petitioner, are respondents No.8 and 9. However, allotment of work as such has not been challenged in the petition. Though the petitioner claimed that he made representation to the Deputy Commissioner and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narnaul on 8.8.2011, however, in that the only grouse raised is that he was not issued the tender documents. There is nothing about giving him a preferential treatment or ignoring his claim. The case set up therein is altogether different than the case pleaded in the writ petition. In any case, there being no challenge to the allotment of tender and prayer for setting aside the same, we do not find any case is made out for interference in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice 19.8.2011 mk