HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI JAGDISH BHALLA, Ag. CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI $ATI$H K. AGNIHOTRI, J. W.P. (C) No‘146 of 2008 Wri'r Pavilion under Article 226 of the‘Cons‘ri'l'u‘l'ion of India Presen'r : 5hri Somna-rh Verma, counsel for The pe‘l'i‘rioner. Shri Vashwani' Singh Thakur, Governmen'l' Advocai'e for 'i‘he Stale. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11"" January, 2008) The following oral order o‘f ‘l'he Court was passed by Hon'ble Jagdish Bhallo, Ag. C.J'. Pefi‘h'oner Deepak Kumar Agrawal, aged 28 years, son of Shr'i Vishwadayal Agrawal, residen? of Shivr-inarayan, fans” -l. :I Pamgar‘h, diS'h‘icf Janjgiru Champa (Chho‘Hisgar-h) Versui Raspondem's 1. 5mm of Chhaf‘risgar-h ‘rhr-ouah 'I'he secre‘rarry, Depar‘hf‘ehf’ 6f Fégd and Civil Supply, Raipur. 2. The Chhaffisgarh S'tafe Civil Suppiies ‘ €orpor'aiion Limifed, Thraugh fhe Managing Director, Chhaiiiggarh 5mm Civii 5uppiié§ Corporai'ion Limi‘i'ed, Kucheri Chowk, Raipur (Chhaifisgar-h) 3. The General Manager (Finance), Chhafli§garh Sim-e Civil Supplies Corporation Limi‘l‘ed, Kucheri Chowk, Raipur (Chhaffisgarh) 4. The Disfric‘l Managing Direcfor, C'n'nal‘iisgwh Siam Civil Supplies' Corporai‘ion Liml‘l‘ed, Korba (Chhailisgarh) @ _1v The path-inner- has approached ‘rhis Court infer a/ia praying that a wr-i'r in The na‘l'ure of mandamus be issued directing 'rhe respondents To refund 1he securi1y amoun‘l' with damages a‘r The rate of 18% in'i'eres‘r per mon‘rh 1’0 fhe pe‘i’ifioner for‘l'hwifh. AT The ou‘l'sei', learned counsel for The pe‘l'i‘rioner gave up his prayer wi'rh respect ‘l'o 'rhe damages a‘i' 'rhe ra‘i'e of 18% inferesf per mon‘rh, keeping his op‘rion open for going 1'0 Theappropriafe forum. Wi1'h regard 1'0 The refund of The securiTy amounT, iT has been submiTTed on behalf of The peTiTioner ThaT The peTiTioner has noT responded To The adverTisemenT daTed 28"" March, 2007, however, he has only responded To The Tender noTice daTed 27 April, 2007. Learned counsel for The peTiTioner has admiTTed ThaT The affidaviT asked for, was noT furnished by The peTiTioner, Therefore, The agreemenT could noT be execuTed. No oTher poinT was pressed on behalf of The peTiTioner. In such circumsTances, ThepeTiTioner could noT show any ground wherein inTerference is warranTed under ArTicle 226 of The ConsTiTuTion of India. Accordingiy, The wriT peTiTion is dism issed. ‘ f“ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/— Sdl- ’ Ag; Chief JusTice 4‘