Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has called in question awarding of the sanitation tender process drawn by respondents No. 1 to 3 at Regional Hospital, Kullu, on the ground that the said tender has been allotted in favour of respondent No. 4 without following due process of law. 2. The petitioner has pleaded in paras 2 and 4 of the writ petition that the petitioner had applied for sanitation tender at Mahatma Gandhi Medical Services Complex (MGMSC) Khaneri, Rampur, for the financial year 2016-17, but the firms, which were not eligible, were declared qualified in the technical bid. Further averred that respondents No. 1 to 3 have wrongly and illegally awarded the sanitation tender at Regional Hospital, Kullu, in favour of respondent No. 4 despite the fact that it was not fulfilling the terms and conditions contained in the tender document. 3. The respondents have filed the replies. Respondents No. 1 to 3, in their reply, have stated that as per the check list of the documents to be attached with the technical bid, respondent No. 4 was found to be eligible and the tender of sanitation in respect of the Regional Hospital, Kullu, was allotted in its favour being the lowest bidder. But, when the fact of cancellation/rejection of the ESIC number of respondent No. 4 came into the notice of respondent No. 3, the matter was got verified from the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Baddi (for short “ESIC”) and, thereafter, respondent No. 4 was asked to explain, which furnished new ESIC number allotted to it alongwith copies of various challans paid with effect from 15th February, 2015. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have specifically taken these pleas in the preliminary submissions and in paras 2 and 5 of the reply on merits. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have also specifically stated that the petitioner had challenged the tender process for sanitation in respect of MGMSC Khaneri, Rampur, by the medium of CWP No. 882 of 2016, which was dismissed by this Court, being not maintainable vide judgment and order, dated 27th June, 2016, thus, cannot maintain this writ petition on similar grounds. 5. 5. Respondent No. 4, in para 2 of the preliminary submissions and reply on merits, has specifically averred that it was registered with ESIC since February, 2015, under Employer's Code No. 1532240001001, was blocked/cancelled by ESIC without any enquiry/verification on the wrong assumption that the business premises of the said respondent is situated outside the municipal limits of Municipal Corporation, Shimla, which is non-implemented area under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”). Further averred that when it came to know about the blocking/cancellation of the Employer's Code, it immediately approached ESIC alongwith revenue record and certificate from the concerned Patwari to the effect that its business premises is situated within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Shimla. Thereafter, ESIC revoked the rejection and issued fresh Employer's Code enforceable with effect from February, 2015, because a number/code, once blocked, cannot be reallotted. Thus, it has been pleaded that respondent No.4 was eligible in all respects. 6. Respondent No. 4 has also specifically stated that the petitioner has not participated in the tender process, thus, has no right to question the same. It has also been stated that the petitioner, being involved in the business of providing contract services in hospitals and other public institutions throughout the State of Himachal Pradesh, has obtained several service contracts by producing forged documents resulting in registration of various FIRs against the petitioner's firm and is facing trial. It is also stated that the petitioner is in the habit of approaching the Courts whenever his tender is rejected. 7. We have examined the pleadings read with the record and are of the considered view that respondents No. 1 to 3 have not committed any illegality or irregularity in awarding the tender in favour of respondent No. 4 being the lowest bidder for the following reasons: 8. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, was asked to seek instructions as to whether the petitioner has participated in the tender process in question or not, has furnished list of the firms which have participated in the sanitation tender process at Regional Hospital, Kullu, for the year 2016-17, made part of the file. The perusal of the said list does disclose that the petitioner or his firm has not participated in the said tender process, has no locus to question the same. Thus, the writ petition is not maintainable only on this score. 9. The perusal of the said list does disclose that the petitioner or his firm has not participated in the said tender process, has no locus to question the same. Thus, the writ petition is not maintainable only on this score. 9. It has duly been established by respondent No. 4 that the ESIC number was wrongly blocked/cancelled by ESIC, which mistake was rectified by ESIC, when pointed out by respondent No. 4 supported by relevant documents, by issuing fresh ESIC number with effect from February, 2015. The same ESIC number could not be issued to respondent No. 4 for the reason that once a number/code is blocked by the computer, the same cannot be reallotted. Respondent No. 4 has used the said ESIC number and filed various challans for depositing the share of employer's contribution towards the contributory insurance premium of its employees. Thus, no case for judicial review is made out. 10. Having glance of the above discussions, the writ petition is dismissed alongwith all pending applications.