PETITIONERS Yudhishthir Chandrakar S/o. Shri C.L. Chandrakar age about— 38 years, R/o. — Ward No. 15, Gobra Navapara , Raipur, Distt.~ Raipur (C.G.) Shivkumar S/ o.Jhuri Ram Koshre, age about— 4O years, R/o. —Ward No. *6 , Gobra Navapara, Raipur, Distt.— Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS REONENT SPDS : ,/ 1. General Manager/ Regional Manager, Regional Office, Food Corporation ,of India, Raipur, Disttm Raipur (C.G.) Food Corporation of India, District Office Madina Manzil, Jail Road, Kachahri Chouwk , Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through:— Collector , Raipur (2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. No.‘7S g9 /2006 (s.B.) Distt.— Raipur (C.G.) ( 4. Incharge Food Corporation of India, Rajim , Disttt— Raipur (c.G.)‘ Nasim Ahmad, Contractor of F.C.I.) Gudda Transport, SihaWa Chowk , Dhamtan‘; ( c o ) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226(227 OF \K IN THE MATTER. HIGHw m‘r OF mmSG a BILASPUR Writ Petition No.7580 Petition ulArticle a26lgz7 of the Constitutionof India, ‘ » Amatmce Smt Renu Kochar counsel for the pentmners Shri Ajay Dwwedl, Dy Govt Advocate for the State ORAL- ORDER M7 (Passed on 27.4.201 1) Heard. The petitioners have tiled this pétition seekmg a direction to respondents to dispose of their representation to provide necessary facilities, to hammals/labours employed m d r‘ Jaundhabhata Unit of F C I in Raipur Dismct The petmoners I have also prayed for a dxrecnon to hold enquujy Into the work V I earned out by contmctor~respondent No 5 and for taking action “ against him for caneellatton of h1s contract. . Though this petition has been tiled in the year 2006, till date no notices have been issued. On earlier dates of hearing, though time was gantegi to the counsel who nsually appears for F.C.I. to seek instructions and inform whether petitioners’ representation 1s pending cons1deration or not, leaned counsel for respondents . Permoms ‘ Yudhisthir Chandrakar as Venus Rssmmmms No. 1,2 85 4/F.C.I. could not infoun as t0 whether any decision ' has been taken or not. 4. The substance ofthe petition is that the petitioners, who are ‘ ’iworking as hammals and labours, claimed thatvarious worksjn ‘ the F.C.I.’, for which oonu‘act is being awan‘led by way oftender to contractors, should not be taken recourse to andtheworkshould. ‘- be given to the petitioners, because under tender system,.while awarding contract of work to contractors, the work is bdng done. on a much higher rate, whereas, if thework is awarded to the - hammals, who are working, the work. can be done at muehua cheaper ratest 5. After going through the petition, I am not incline'wto‘issue mm v; ‘ to respondents, considering the nature'of prayer madehy them petitioners in this petition and that this petmon has remained» i pending without notice to respondents. However, the petitioners i, would be at liberty to represent their, gievances befoxe the t I concerned authorities of the F.C.I., who may take appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioners; > It is made clear that this Courthas notexpressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the. petitioners and the respondent- authorities shall be at liberty to consider the grievance of the petitioners in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposedef; i Sd/— Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge .