JUDGMENT Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner is a primary Labour & Construction Society registered under the provisions of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. It is the say of the petitioner that keeping in view the objective for which such societies are formed, a notification dated 11.7.2011 was issued granting certain concessions to these societies. The controversy emanates from a directive stated to be issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab on 25.11.1994 and thereafter 22.5.2001 in terms whereof qua tenders for unskilled work and for the skilled work up to the limit of Rs. 5 lacs, the Labour & Construction Societies of the same district alone were required to participate, the only exception being where there were no Labour & Construction Societies in that district capable of handling the work. This aspect came to be considered in C.W.P. No. 8396 of 2010 titled as the Haripura Cooperative Labour & Construction Society Ltd. Haripura and others vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 27.5.2010 where challenge was laid to instructions of a tender notice providing for Cooperative Labour & Construction Societies to participate in the tenders of their home districts. The writ petition was partly allowed observing that the impugned notification dated 4.5.2010 cannot be said to be law and its basis has not been disclosed. At first sight, such instructions were found to be unjustified and arbitrary and, thus, such societies of different districts were held not to be debarred from participating in the tender process throughout the State. Admittedly, this order has never been assailed further and has become binding law. 2. The result of the aforesaid writ petition appears to have been considered by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, who passed an order dated 16.12.2013 qua representation of one of the Co-operative Labour & Construction Societies. In the said order, the restriction sought to be placed has been justified on the ground that otherwise stronger societies from one district would start poaching on the weaker societies in other districts. Surprisingly, this observation has been made despite the fact that the general observation is that the Government has endeavoured to protect the Labour & Construction Societies as most of these consist of poor labourers who do not have the wherewithal. Surprisingly, this observation has been made despite the fact that the general observation is that the Government has endeavoured to protect the Labour & Construction Societies as most of these consist of poor labourers who do not have the wherewithal. Thus, it is not understood by us in what context inter se such societies has such an observation been made as the matter in issue pertains only to such similar societies participating throughout Punjab rather than being restricted to their own districts. 3. In the said order, the Registrar notes that the restriction cannot be applied in view of the orders in C.W.P. No. 8396 of 2010, but opines that since the Registrar was not a party and the reasons for issuing instructions were not brought to the notice of the Court, the legal remedy should be availed of. Having opined so, the Registrar should have stopped at that and availed of the legal remedy, but rather than doing so has made the observation that despite the orders, the Societies cannot be debarred. To say the least, this is completely improper if not contemptuous as by an administrative order, the Registrar cannot supersede a judgment of the Court. 4. It is this aforesaid order which has now sought to be relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner to canvass before us that the restriction should continue to prevail and, thus, the decision taken by the Municipal Corporation of Ludhiana to cancel the earlier tender where such restriction was placed is wrong. This is in the context of a tender being floated in which the petitioner was found to be L-I and that tender being assailed by another Co-operative Labour & Construction Society in C.W.P. No. 407 of 2014 where the Corporation on re-consideration of the matter withdrew the tender and has now floated a fresh tender without the restriction. 5. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, there can be really no basis of challenge in view of what we have recorded aforesaid and it cannot be said that the Corporation must be compelled to include the restriction as part of tender process to facilitate a benefit to the petitioner. 6. 5. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, there can be really no basis of challenge in view of what we have recorded aforesaid and it cannot be said that the Corporation must be compelled to include the restriction as part of tender process to facilitate a benefit to the petitioner. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that directives are under Rule 45 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 which aspect was not considered in C.W.P. No. 8396 of 2010 and, thus, the observations made therein are per incuriam. 7. We do not agree with this proposition for the reason that the very basis of the judgment is unreasonableness and arbitrariness of placing such a restriction, calling the very restriction into question. This apart, the petitioner as a contractor cannot compel a Corporation to follow the restriction. 8. We are, thus, of the view that no fault can be found with the tender process adopted by the Municipal Corporation. Application dismissed.