SBCWP 1435/2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R Somdatt V/s. State and ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1435/2008 Date of Order : 18/02/2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Arvind Bhardwaj for the petitioner. ****** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed with the prayer that respondents be directed to award the fishing contract to the petitioner for a period of five years. The petitioner participated in the tender process which was initiated pursuant to the short term tender Notice No.6 dated 15/12/2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there can be no short term tender notice and that as per Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Fisheries Rules, 1953, no tender can be invited for a period lesser than one year. It was argued that even according to aforesaid rule, the fishing contract was required to be given initially for one year but upto a period of five years which is extendable on year to year basis. Learned counsel argued that in the cases of other tenderers, contract has been awarded to them for a period of five years. SBCWP 1435/2008 2 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material forming part of this petition, I find that the notice inviting tender dated 15/12/2007 was itself for the remainder period of the financial year 2007-08. No material has been placed on record to show that in the cases of other contractors also, they were initially awarded contract for only remainder period of 2007-08 and yet their contract was renewed for a period of five years. The petitioner knowing fully well about the fact that it was a short term tender notice and contract was awarded only for the remainder period of 2007-08, participated in the tender process. He has now approached this Court with a prayer of issuing mandamus to the respondents. However, this Court by a mandamus could not now require the respondents to keep the contract revived for the entire duration of five years. It would rather be unfair to a large number of bidders/contractors who might have participated in the process of tender had it been notified for a full period of five years. I am, therefore, not pursuaded to uphold the contention of the petitioner that the respondents be directed by issuing a mandamus to revise his contract for a period of five years. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accodingly dismissed in limine. Anil (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.