Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant case is an example which reveals the magnitude to which a litigant can abuse the process of the Court. The Petitioner has entered into an agreement (contract) with the respondent No. 2 for a period of three years to run a canteen on making certain amount of payment and after exploiting most of it, he has challenged the validity of the said agreement and pra- yed that the said agreement dated 5.6.93, contained in Annexure 1 to this petition, be quashed.

(2). An auction was held on 10.5.92 to award a contract of the canteen by the respondent No. 2 in the area of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mandore Road, Jodhpur. The petitioner was the highest bidder as he made a bid of Rs. 1,70,700/- for a period of three years. An agreement to the said effect was entered into between the parties on 5.7.92. After having an agreement, the petitioner was delivered the possession of the canteen and he made the payment of the amount on various dates and on 11.7.94 the dues remained only to the tune of Rs. 56,900/-. The respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to deposit the said amount, the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of the said agreement after acting upon it and deriving benefits of it for two years.

(3). The only ground, on which it has been assailed is that a large number of persons, who had been in possession of the canteens or shops and dealing in estables since 1975 and 1982 in the premises, were paying a very low premium as monthly licence fee and the petitioner has been asked, in the auction, to deposit the huge amount and, thus, it was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(4). Heard Mr. L.R. Kalla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Bhansali, learned counsel for the respondents.

(5). The issue of discrimination is not involved at all for the simple reason that the persons, whose details have been given in para No. 12 of the petition, had been running the shops and selling eatables from 17.7.75, 16.4.80 and 1.10.82. They had been given the premises on monthly licence-fee. The petitioner had been given the contract on 5.6.93. Not only that, there are various other persons who had also taken the canteen on contract and paid huge amounts as is evident from the contents of para No. 12 itself. The respondent No. 2 had taken a specific plea in the writ petition that the petitioner had given the bid with open mind and open eyes and there was no assurance of any kind, oral or in writing, that the other persons who are running the shops and selling the eatables by paying licence-fee, would be evicted or their licences would not be renewed. It has further been clarified that earlier the Government had taken a policy-decision to allot the shops on licence and subsequently as the policy was changed, the shops had been allotted by auction. It is not averred by the petitioner that subsequent to the agreement with the petitioner, respondent No. 2 has granted a licence to any person on the basis of monthly licen- ce-fee. In view of these specific facts and circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim that he has been given a hostile discrimination or the action of the respondent No. 2 is arbitrary. As such the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is preposterous.

(6). There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner had made the bid voluntarily knowing the contents of the contract and a person, after securing a contract, and taking into account its terms and conditions, cannot, later, be allowed to assail the validity of the contract on any ground by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In Har Shanker vs. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (1), the Apex Court has held as under :-

``The writ jurisdiction of the High Court under ARticle 226 of the Constitution is not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligations voluntarily incurred.

(7). Similarly, in Yasar Shafi & Ors. vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2), the Apex Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document