£VO Q^ HIGH CQURT OFCHMATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR DSVISION CORAM: HON'BLE SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRS SUNIL KUMAR S8NKA, J. Petstioner Respondents Writ Petltion (Cl No.1537/2010 M/s Radheyshyam Agrawai, Partner Sanjay Agravv'ai, Aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Radheyshyam Agrawal, R/o Sarvoday Nagar Heerapur Road, Near CG Public School. TeSibandha Ralpur Tah and Dlstt - Raipur (CG) VERSUS 1 State of Chhattjsgarh Through - Secretary, Pub!ic Works Dspartment, DKS Bhawan Mantralay Ralpur (CG) 2 Engineer— In - Chief, PWD Sirpur Bhaw'an Civll Line Raipur Tah and Dlstt Raipur (CG) 3 Chief Engineer; PWD Sirpur Bhawan Clvl! Llne Raipur Tah and Distt Rajpur 4 Pradeep Kumar Janwade, Engineer In - Chief, PWD Sirpur Bhawan Ciyji Line Raipur Tah and Distt Ralpur (CG) Writ PetitiOiuirsderArtlcle 226 of Constitutioii of India Present : Shri Manjsh Upadhyaya, counset forthe petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Addltionaj Advocate Genera! for the State /1 to 3. ORDER gth (4m May, 2010) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Learned counsei forthe parties are heard on admlssion. ^^^.^^ ^'^^'%.. ^ / ^ ^ \ ^ '^^^^~. 'l 1 '^ j '^?^^y' 2) Petitioner M/s Radheyshyam Agrawai has filed this writ petition for the foliowing reliefs : "10.1 That the entire records of the case shouid be called from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That the Petitloner experience certificate shouid be considered by respondent authorities so that financial bid of petitioner shouid be open and than according to law the further process of tender must be conducted by the respondent authorities. 10.3 That during the pendency ofthis petition Ifthe finandal bid of Tender No. 1986 open than it must be subject to this writ petition" 3) The petstioner had earlier filed another writ petition for the same reliefs which came to be reaistered asWP(C) No. 1398/2010. 4) Shri Manish Upadhyaya, iearned counsel for the petltioner sought permission to withdraw the said writ petition with Jiberty of pursulng the Clvii Suit filed by the petitioner and avalling the other remedies, which may be availabie to the petitioner under the relevant provlsions of iaw. 5) The petitioner vlde order dated 01.04.2010 was granted permission to withdraw the writ petition with the above liberty. 6) It appears that, after the wlthdrawal of the writ petition, the petitioner, for the reasons best known to hlm wlthdrew his Civil Suit also and then has fiSed this second writ petltion for the same reliefs, which were sought by hlm in WP(C) No. 1398/2010. 7) As the petitioner whlie seeking permlssion to wlthdraw WP(C) No.1398/2010, was not given iiberty to file another writ ^?.. petition, this writ petition whlch is second writ petition for the same reliefs is llable to be dismissed as not maintainabie. 8) The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed as not maintainabie. Sd/- Chief Justice padina Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge