m$iéa£m Wma w i x. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION [C] No. §\Q9'LS [2010 M/s KANHA ENGINEERING Through its Proprietor, Ram Singh Rajput, s/o Late MP. Singh, Having its Head Office at Near FCI Godam, Katghora, District — Korba (CG) Petitioner Versus 1. " State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Town & Country Pianning & Deveipoment DKS Bhawan,Mantralaya, Raipur, District — Raipur (CG) Resyondent No.1 2. Commissioner, Town & Country Planning & Develpoment Raipur, District ~ Raipur (CG) Respondent No.2 Nagar Panchayat GoureHa, Through its Chief Municipal Officer, GoureHa, District — Biiaspur (CG) Respondent No. 3 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA m HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI I.M.QUDDUSI & HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, JJ. WRIT PETITION (C) No.292512010 Mr. Kshitiz Sharma. Advocate for the petitioner. L Miss Deepali Pandey, Pane! Lawyer for the state. Mr. Ashok Soni, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORA ORDER K. LM. Quddusi, J; 1. By this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned letter No.260 dated 09.06.2010 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit the difference amount of Rs.15,99.1 59l-. . Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.3 issued tender inviting tenders from the eligibie contractors for construction of shopping complex at the Old Bus Stand, Gaurella. in the said notice inviting tender it was one of the conditions i.e. Condition No.32. that in case in any tender the amount shown is below the SOR, then difference of the amount shall be deposited separately in the shape of FDR/TDR. in response to the above notice inviting tender. the petitioner submitted its offer. Respondent No.3 vide its letter dated 20.5.2010 informed the petitioner that offer submitted by the petitioner is found to be lowest one and directed the petitioner to appear on 28.5.2010. in the said‘ietter, the respondent No.3 has also asked the petitioner to deposit the difference amount of Rs.15,99,159l-, as per Condition No.32 of the tender documentigcs. before entering into the agreement. The petitioner instead of depositing the difference amount submitted a representation before the respondent No.3 mentioning therein that demand of deposit of baiance difference amount is arbitrary and unreasonable as the same would be contrary to the PWD manual. Respondent No.3 vide lettergated‘ J 03.06.2010 called upon the petitioner to deposit the difference i amount by 08.06.2010 and on failure on the art of the ~ (Passed on 15 July, 2010) \x p PETITIONER Mls Kanha Engineering Vs RESPONDENTS State of C.G. & another Present: petitionet, the tender awarded to the petitionev has been canceHed by the respondent No.3 vide impugned letter dated 09.06.2010. r We have heard teamed counset for the parties and peruaed the record. . The petitioner submitted his tender meaning thereby thathhe has accepted all the conditions as the petitioner did not .raise any objection at that time. Tenders were opened and it was found that the tender of the petitioner was lowest one and hence. tender of the petitioner was accepted and when the petitioner was asked to deposit the difference amount as per noticeinviting tender, the petitioner raised the objection and consequently filed the instant ‘writ petition when for non-compliance of that condition his tender has'been cancelled. . Since the petitioner has participated in the tender process and it was a condition mentioned in the notice inviting tender that successful tenderer shall deposit the difference of the price quoted by him and the SOR mentioned in the tender document and he accepted the same as he participated in the tender process without any objection, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. . However, at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner . submitted that he has moved a representation before the respondent No.3, but that has not been disposed of till date. . Therefore. we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent.No.3 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. if not already disposed of. as early as possible in accordance with law without being influenced by this order. Sd/— N. K. Agarwat n‘ Judgev Sd/— T T” ’ I.M.Quddusi Judge ' Roshanl-