ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Mr. A.K. Sinha learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Building Construction Department has issued tenders for the maintenance of electricity work which was to be done by the Energy Department, and that petitioner No. 2, being one of the contractors of the Energy Department, is aggrieved, as, if the work was to be done by the Energy Department he could also get some work. He further submitted that Tender has been invited also for some of the works already done by the petitioner and other contractors, under the Energy Department. 2. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenor, submitted that he is appearing for the contractors of the Building Construction Department, who are also doing some of the electrical maintenance work through the Building Construction Department. He supported issuance of Tenders by the Building Construction Department. 3. Mr. S.B. Gadodia, learned Advocate General, appearing for the State of Jharkhand. submitted that the contractors of one or other department have no locus standi. He further submitted that if one or other department thought it necessary, they could/can move the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand. He further submitted that as the requisitions were sent to both the Departments, by oversight, some works were advertised which might have been done by the Energy Department. He further submitted that so far as the notice inviting tender Annexure 5/1 is concerned, the work is almost complete and so far as the notice inviting tender-Annexure 5 is concerned, the same are to be opened in May, 2008. However, he fairly submitted that the Chief Secretary is looking into all these matter. 4. In reply, Mr. A.K. Sinha, appearing for the petitioners agreed that so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned it may not have locus standi, but so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, he being one of the contractors of the Energy Department is the person aggrieved, and therefore, he has got locus standi He further submitted that if the work under the tender notice-Annexure 5/1 is almost completed, it may not be disturbed. 5. Though, prima facie, I am not satisfied with regard to the locus standi of the contractors of one or the other departments, but in view of the statements made by the learned Advocate General, it is not necessary to go into that question for the present. 5. Though, prima facie, I am not satisfied with regard to the locus standi of the contractors of one or the other departments, but in view of the statements made by the learned Advocate General, it is not necessary to go into that question for the present. 6. In the circumstances, the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand should look into the matter and take decision in accordance with law, as early as possible and preferably before the notice inviting tender (Annexure 5) is opened in May, 2008. It goes without saying that it will be kept in view that the public work should not suffer. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. However, no costs. Lat a copy of this order be given to the learned Advocate General, as prayed.