HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bench Coram : Hon'ble Shri Jagdish Bhalla, Ag. C.J. and Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Writ Petition No.7212 of 2006 Petitioner Respondents Dashmesh Construction Company A-5, P.W.D. Contractor, Near Bus Stand, Pathalgaon, District -Jashpur (CG) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Public Works, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Chief Engineer, Department of Public Works, P.0. Ambikapur, District-Sarguja 3. Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, P.0. Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (CG) 4. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, District-Jashpur (CG) Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of aBDrooriate writs of mandamus and certiorari and for othersuitab!e_writs^nd directions Present : Shri Prashant Mishra, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.K.Agrawal, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12th July, 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed by Jagdish Bhalla, Acting C.J. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the tender notice (^ dated 7.11.2006 byvirtue ofwhich tenderswere called <»afresh. According to the petitioner, he was granted a contract and after entering into a written agreement between the parties, he started performing «- -r-LaiB^i^e&ffi ^z - 2.— his work. However, during the course of the work, the petitioner's contract was rescinded, though learned counsel is not aware of the date on which contract was rescinded. After that the petitioner was not allowed to work and finally by impugned tender notice dated 13.11.2006 fresh tenders were called. From the perusal of relief clause, the petitioner had in fact challenged the quashing of the impugned notice dated 7.11.2006 calling forfresh tenders and subsequent action of the respondents in pursuance of the calling for the tenders. We have been informed that in the light of the above, tendershave already been accepted. Therefore, the petitioner seeks liberty to file fresh writ petition for challenging the new contract awarded to some other contractor. Accordingly, thewrit petition is dismissed as infructuous with liberty to file a fresh petition against the award oftender and its accepted. Sd/- Acting Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 6' ^