yssS&Sss&SxaKs (S? ^/' .^< c ^-.f IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0. '^^>-S /2002 PETITIONER Ravishankar Tripathi, son of C.D. Tripathi, aged about 46 years, Occupation- Contractor, Class III, Resident of Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS •^ RESPONDENTS ^! ,^^" ^^•••'"vl'//' ' ^^ ./. ,.6tr ^ ^c^^ <2'^' .1^" 1) /UNION OF INDIA Through Director General of Postal and Telegraph , Department of Postal and Telegraph, New Delhi 2L:/ 3) State of Through P.W.D. Chhatti sgarh, Secretary (Bridge Corporation) Raipur, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) State of Chhattisgarh Through : Post Master General, Raipur Circle, Raipur (Chhatti sgarh) 4) Superintendent of Post Office, Head Post Office, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 5) Chief Executive Engineer, Bridge Corporation of (3> ~~E ~t: j India, Bilaspur, Behind Nagar Nigam Office, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO DO JUSTICE. XI-HG—78 '3^ ^TPTRW, ^tll^^Ko, f^<ni<r!^< WH?1T ^*Iicb . W«<^*<S>V. ^l^ /t-0 •^w W,|200 37T^T •q^RT ("^fp^T) W^T ^T fqii^ ^^ -2R?^T S^^i<^ t ^^TW Trf^i 3^T Shri A. N. Bhakta, counsel f^ Shri V.V.S.Mui-tliy, Addl. counsel for respondents No. 1,3 Shri Ranbrr Smgh, G.A. foii Heard on fhe question of a4 The prayer m tliis writ appropriate writ, dii'ectioii zj.id respect to item No,l m the N.I| autliorities to re-tender tlie said itl )r the petittoner. Central Goveniiiient staiiditig ajtid 4. It is -not disputed that tciidcrs for construction of Tokbda K. M. 4/ 8 on Bandarchua JashpuiTiagai', which was show: invitmg :the teiiclers. , The . e.stij Rs.24,62,000/-. According to th. NJ.T-, he llad siibmitted his teud vide receipt which is Anxiexure A- ^Nid^ih TH1R^f ^f f^t^ <(^^l< ^3tRR<3^T 1 tlie State. iBiission. i i ^etition is ifor issuauce of aii jorder quashmg the tender io. |T. aad for a dli'ection to the £m. jrespondcnt No.5 - had issued appro^ch road aci-oss rivcr Mainy at Road ui the Distnct of ¥|i as itexa No,l iii tlie uotice ti<D.ated cost of tlie work was petitioner, io. response to tlie ;rby speed poston 13.3.2002 to the petition, but his tender x-»"""* '3^: '•^fFTRW, ^tws^/ f^ra^: ^P?^T%^IW •°^.2QO -^T^?^^ (^f3^?) i^i^ ^fi^ ^n^i ^ v though lowest was not cousi4 allotted to a tenderer wlio quote^ In response to fhe noticeJ lias been filed wherein it is sp4 submitted by tlie petitioner ha|3 office hourson 13.3,2002 whicli tlie.. teiiclers, As per the received 011 tlie last date aiic] condjitions considered aiid the work wAs allotted accordiagly, The petitioner's contentlou? howeve] posted ou 13.3.2002 were recei^ posted on 13.3.2002 hadnot 11 This, however, is uot a iiiatter 1 There is nothiiig on record to made aiiy enquiiy from tlie pos the parcel (tender papers) sei-i delivered on the conceiTied respc A retuni has been filed on iii paragraph 5, it is spectfically .'^Flte?N "^"R^ ^ fe^t <f^^S< '^'•si^H^n^r ered aad the work has beeu a higher rate. issued by this Court, a retura> etficaUy averred that fhe tender 1 not been received duriiig fhe was the.last date for receiving ^ all texiders, which were fatfilled fhe condifcioiis were is fliat ofher tencler papers ^ed but Irls tendcr paper tliough |ecn reccived whicfa is strange^ for considei'ation bv this Court. " |nclicate tliat the petitioner had ft office to ascertaixi as to whei^ |t by speed post was ; actuaUy Indent, Ibehalf of Union of India wherein. aven'ed tliat the petitiouer had Gr: PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. -3 4i: XI-HG—78 'STT^T ^T'^N' \'cT8T[ ^H^T$^<-TW ^ <r,. c". *1l*lCTf %i*ll<!h -^^ ^(l^l^q^ ^tTl^Ko, facrll^^< . ^*^r$F^ •^i^eo- ^CT^T "V^ (<lcli^<sl<S^) ^iTW^ftn ^n^T -3- booked ihe parcel by speed post to be delivered on tlie next date conceiTied addressee refused to to Uie peti.tioner. Thus, it is cle^ not receivecl by tlie. concenied receivio-g teiiders. In fhis view t-hat aiiy iUegalily aiicl iiTegulaii concerned respondent. If the the postal clepartment, he is fre^ ForuBi for retief |on 13.3.2002 aiid itwas sought Le. 14.3.2002. However, as the ^ccept it, thle sanie was retu.med ^r tfiat tiie petitioner's offer ¥7as aii.tliority on tlie last clate fixed for ^f the. Biatter, it caiinot be said ^y have.been com:niitted by the ^titioner lias aiiy cause agaiast to approacli tlie •CoaiBion Law Petitiou fails- aiid is disinisl 'C-ertificd Copy as pcr niles| <^i^(<n€sNTTR^ft ^* Fs^ <RI^K '^3tf^H3?T^[ sed. Sd/- P.C. Naik Judge II ^\.- ^l/