GH AHMAD GANAIE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 presumptions 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.

(2.) YET 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 citizens 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.