AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A grouse is registered by the petitioner against the tender notices issued by the respondent 6 on the ground that he lacks the territorial
jurisdiction. The contention need not detain the Court. Assignment of the jurisdiction is the province of the State and its functionaries authorized in
this behalf. The State having not objected to the jurisdiction of the respondent 6 presumption arises in favour of availability of his jurisdiction. Apart
from that the petitioner has no locus standi to canvass that the tenders should be invited by a particular officer. Who should exercise such power
falls within the jurisdiction of the respondent 1. Situated thus, indulgence is uncalled for.
Yel another snag which the petitioner cannot apparently overcome traceable to the fact that the petitioner aims at creation of a separate class for
purposes of allotment as is evident from the averment made in Para 2 of his pleadings suggesting that only a group of contractors belonging to a
particular area should be allowed to participate which I refuse to accept for the simple reason that relief so sought, if granted, fall out will be
inequality amongst the cili/ens without there being reasonable basis. Situated thus petition fails and is dismissed along with CMP. No order as to
costs. Order to be communicated to the respondents by the Registry in its entirety.