1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2309/2008 Peeru Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :: 09-04-2008 HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,J. Mr. Sajjan Singh, for the petitioner. This writ petition is directed against order at Annex.14 i.e. notice inviting tender. The further prayer is to quash and set aside the order dated 29.3.2008 passed pursuant to the representation of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was given contract for collection of royalty for a period of one year and his prayer making contract for a period of two years was not accepted. It is contended that the contract period should have been for a period of two years in view of circular at Annex.5 dated 20.1.1998, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was first granted contract for a period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 while the contract was granted on second occasion for the same area vide the order dated 19.3.2007, as per circular dated 20.1.1998, it should have been for a period of two 2 years. The petitioner made protest against Annex.2 and submitted that the contract period of one year should be made as a period of two years. However, when nothing was done by the respondents, petitioner preferred a writ petition wherein this Court had given direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of circular dated 20.1.1998. Pursuant to direction, respondents passed an order dated 29.3.2008 at Annex.13. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the order dated 29.3.2008 respondents failed to take note of the circular dated 20.1.1998 and thus matter was not considered in proper terms as otherwise directed by this Court. I considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire record. It is a case where on second occasion when the contract was given to the petitioner, it was specifically made for a period of one year and the petitioner accepted the said agreement and thereafter only made a protest with request that the contract period should be made for a period of two years. The submission so made in that regard by the petitioner was not accepted by the respondents and perusal of the circular dated 20.1.1998 reveals that same is an 3 administrative order and no right can be claimed pursuant to the said circular. More so when, despite of existence of circular, the petitioner had agreed with the terms and conditions of the second agreement and signed the contract accepting the period of contract to be of one year, therefore subsequent protest cannot be accepted and in any case contractual right as has been claimed by the petitioner cannot be given by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find that the order dated 29.3.2008 can be set aside as it has not been decided in reference to circular dated 20.1.1998 as aforesaid aspect has been considered by this Court as discussed above. Hence, this Court cannot interfere in the notice inviting tender vide Annex.14 and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed in limine. [Munishwar Nath Bhandari],J. Praveen