JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State and perused the judgment under appeal. 2. The Writ Court, by the judgment and order under appeal, has refused to interfere with the order of the authorities cancelling an order for supply of certain printed materials by the petitioner for very cogent reasons given in the order. The order in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on the allegation that he failed to supply the job cards required for NAREGA scheme within the stipulated time. Simply because the other supplier, who was given supply order subsequently, will take some time to furnish the supply cannot be a good ground to compel the authorities to take supply from a defaulting supplier. We do not see any good ground to interfere with the order of the Writ Court. 3. The writ petitioner could have been given opportunity to approach civil court for damages. However, the Writ Court has tried to take care of any such damage caused to the writ petitioner-appellant on account of his claim that he has already printed job cards in some good quantity, by directing the authority to consider the appellants readiness to supply already printed job cards whose numbers are specified against future requirement. Since the Writ Court has already given some directions to the authorities which has not been challenged by the respondents, it is expected that before placing further order for job cards in the concerned district the stock shown to be ready with the petitioner-appellant shall be taken by the authorities. If that is not done and orders are placed before some other supplier for future requirement, in that event it will be open for the petitioner-appellant to claim damages through a suit. It goes without saying that authorities will take supply of job cards printed by the petitioner-appellant if they meet the requirement. 4. The appeal is disposed of.