AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.—The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or for an order or direction to quash letter No. 10400 dated 31.12.2008 whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 3 purported to have communicated the decision to the respondent No. 4 regarding appointment of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as transporting agent for the district of Khunti for the financial year 2008-09 ignoring the claim of the petitioner for extension in terms of the agreement and for any other appropriate writ order or direction.
The main contention raised by the petitioner is that even under agreement of Clause 14 proviso it is provided for extension and thus he has right to be considered. However during the course of argument he has produced letter No. 2:05: 344:1:2007-183 dated 7.1.2009 wherein his case has been considered for extension of one year as transport agent for the district of Ranchi. He has further contended that he was entitled to be given the transport agent of only two blocks of Khunti also which has already been granted to the private respondents herein.
No legal, accrued or vested right is in favour of the petitioner. In any event, since he has already got the transport agency for the district of Ranchi, there is no need of interference for the reason that the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have already been granted the transport agency vide order dated 31.12.2008 and it has been acted upon.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.