JUDGMENT By the Court.—Photo copies of the documents which have been produced by the respondents and supplementary affidavit be kept with the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 23.6.2011 even after obtaining stamp reporter’s report on 2.6.2011 to get an order in his favour with regard to his representations dated 7.5.2011 and 20.5.2011 in connection with the tender notice dated 25.12.2010 published in the newspaper/s by Kanpur Development Authority. 3. Upon going through the writ petition, we do not find that any urgency has been shown in the application as to why the same has been filed in the vacation Bench. In this regard, administrative order of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice dated 14.5.2011 is quoted hereunder: “In Civil cases and Writ Petitions which require immediate attention, as postulated in 2nd part of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 of Chapter V of the Rules of the Court, 1952, a separate paragraph showing the urgency be specifically mentioned in the petition itself.” 4. The concept of holding vacation Bench is to take up the urgent matters. Regular matters can be taken up by the regular Bench. We are saying so upon being conscious that there is urgent need of disposal of the matters but that does not necessarily mean that there should not be any check and balance in entertaining the matters in the vacation Bench. Unscrupulous litigants can take advantage of the situation which will be taken care of. 5. Moreover, after the administrative direction of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, it is desirable that the stamp reporter should call upon the parties to make a note of the urgency before accepting any petition, application for placing before the concerned Bench. Even the stamp reporter is able to refuse any petition or application if no such urgency is pleaded or tell the parties to rectify the defects and place it again. We should not forget that as the vacation Bench of this High Court sitting regularly so there will be more chances of filing frivolous petitions/applications. Hence, it is desirable on the part of the stamp reporter not to take the administrative order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice so lightly but as mandate upon him. Now let us find out the factual circumstances of this case. 6. In this case, the petitioner did not receive tender but the respondent No. 6 has received the same. Hence, it is desirable on the part of the stamp reporter not to take the administrative order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice so lightly but as mandate upon him. Now let us find out the factual circumstances of this case. 6. In this case, the petitioner did not receive tender but the respondent No. 6 has received the same. The agreement was executed on 5.5.2011 and work order has been issued on 7.5.2011. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Authority has contended that Committee took a decision on 30.3.2011 and when found the offer of the petitioner and respondent are equal called for the confidence proposal afresh to examine the liability and when found that the further order of respondent No. 6 is 0.80 and in case of the petitioner it is 0.90, accepted the lower. 8. We do not find any mala fide or arbitrary action on the part of the respondents. Moreover, a decision is a collective decision of several members. Against this background, we do not find any ground to interfere in this writ petition. Therefore, the same is dismissed. Though, no cost is imposed but it is cautioned hereunder that if the petitioner adopts the same process repeatedly, the Court will be compelled to impose exemplary cost. 9. Copy of the order will also be handed over to the Registrar General to inform the Department to take suitable steps on the basis of the observations of this Court. —————