Writ petition is barred by res judicata where statutory dispute was withdrawn without liberty to pursue further remedies.

The petitioner, a labour contractor previously providing manpower to Respondent No. 4, challenged the award of a manpower supply contract to Respondent No. 6 (via Respondent No. 3, acting as a nodal agency).

The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 3 was appointed as a nodal agency without advertisement and lacked a labour service provider license.

The respondents contended that Respondent No. 3 is a statutory nodal agency under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act and that Respondent No. 6 was selected through a valid Expression of Interest (EOI) process.

Crucially, the petitioner had previously filed a dispute regarding this matter under Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act before the Joint Registrar but withdrew it without seeking liberty to pursue other remedies.

1. Whether the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as a nodal agency was illegal for lack of a labour license or advertisement for recruitment.

2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable after the petitioner withdrew a similar dispute under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act without liberty.

3. Whether the contract award to Respondent No. 6 was procedurally flawed.

The court primarily applied the principle of res judicata regarding the withdrawal of statutory remedies without liberty to file afresh.

Sections 47, 47-A, and 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, which govern the affiliation of societies and the resolution of disputes touching the management or business of a society.

Clause 37 of the Madhya Pradesh Store Purchase and Service Procurement Rules, 2015, regarding the procedure for inviting EOI for services exceeding five lakhs.

Established judicial restraint in contractual matters involving the State, emphasizing limited interference unless gross procedural lapses exist.

The court found the petition legally untenable due to the principle of res judicata, noting that the petitioner had already invoked an "effective and alternative remedy" under Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act and voluntarily withdrew it without obtaining liberty from the Joint Registrar to approach the High Court.

On the merits, the court rejected the claim that Respondent No. 3 required a labour license, clarifying that as a "nodal agency" rather than a service provider, no such statutory requirement exists.

Regarding procedural fairness, the court observed that Respondent No. 3 had issued an EOI in public newspapers, and while Respondent No. 6 participated and was empanelled, the petitioner failed to participate in the process.

The court highlighted that in contractual matters, judicial interference is limited to correcting procedural lapses, which were absent here.

The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that Respondent No. 3 acted within its authority as a nodal agency and that the appointment of Respondent No. 6 followed a transparent competitive process.