HIG\ H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORNW: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI SUNH. KUMAR SENHA, J. Writ Petiticn {C1 N0. 1861 of 2008 PETITIONER RE$?ONDENT {St AH India Federation of Scheduie Castes/Tribes, Backwards and Minorities Employees Welfare Associations (Regd. No.1477/69-70} New Delhi, State Office 249fE, RlyJColony, Near NW. institute, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Through its State President 5.8. Natdu, S/o B. Mutyatu, Aged 85 years, Clo Shri B.L.N. Rae, 249/E Railway Colony, Near N.W. Institute, Distt. Bitaspur (ea) Versus South East Central Railway, Bllaspur, Through its General Manager, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South East Central Railway, Biiaspur (C.G.) Writ Qetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india Present: Shri Amit Choudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. ‘ Shri Vinay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission. ORDER (15‘ May, 2008) 1. The following order of the Court was passed by k) 2. The petitioner-federation has med this writ petition'for the fonowing reliefs:- “10.1.That, the petitioner above named most respectfully prays to this Hon’ble Court to Gail for entire records for its kind perusal. That the petitioner most humbly and respect fully prays to this Hon’ble Court to issue writ of certiorari for quashing of the Tender Notice dated 9.2.2008 advertised in local news paper through Advertisement No.COMf Catering/ Allotmenti’ DStations, contained in ANNEXURE—P/1. That the petitioner most humbly and 10.3. respect fully prays to this Hon’ble Court to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to suitably modify the Item 3 (vi), (vii), (viii) Item 4 (b), General instruction clause (k), clause (n), clause (o) clause (r) of the impugned tender notice. Any other relief whatsoever, this 1&4. Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner.” 3. The petitioner, in substance is seeking quashing of the tender notice dated 09-02-2008 and modincation of some of the conditions in the tender notice- 4. The Notice inviting Tender has not been challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the authorities to invite such tender. During the course of the arguments, teamed counsel for the petitioner could not point out any such ground on which the 10.2. conditions of the tender may be said t0 be unmasonable or arbitrary warranting interference of this Court; 5. in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for grant of the reiiefs sought in the writ petition, at this stage. 6. The writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed summarily. ‘Mi j Sdl— v i Sunil Kumar Sinha Sd/-lr Judge t Chief Justice s ,L