Judgment 1. The Court fails to understand as to what error has been committed in the order on the petition so that an appeal has been filed to challenge the order. 2. The theme of the order is that the petitioner-appellant is not a registered contractor. The learned judge has noticed in paragraphs-4, 5 & 6 of the order that the petitioner-appellant does not have a valid subsisting registration with any of the authorities so as to permit him to enter the arena of putting in a tender. 3. The contention on the letters patent appeal is that the petitioner has made a statement in the writ petition that the petitioner has a registration. Paragraph-4 of the petition is pointed out to the court. This paragraph only says that "that the petitioner is a reputed registered contractor and a partnership firm". Further paragraphs 14 & 15 on the writ petition acknow ledge that the petitioners registration has expired and yet to be renewed. In paragraph 14, it is submitted to the effect that "that it may be stated here that the petitioner had the old registration...with the Corporation vide registration No...........but the same was not renewed. However, the petitioner on 24.4.2003 had applied for fresh registration...In paragraph-15 it has been mentioned that that on 3.5.2003 the petitioner made a representation to the respondent no. 2 that he had old registration with the Corporation and if the same is renewed then work can be started after executing the agreement." 4. From the record, it is clear that the petitioner-appellant does not have a valid subsisting registration. The learned judge has, thus, committed no error, in not granting relief on the writ petition and, in fact, has left the matter open that the registration be renewed so that the petitioner-appellant could in future seek a contract when the occasion so arises. 5. Dismissed.