XI-HC—78 .,PT^-^-? l^fS^ J Tt^1 -r'Tltyr sb-'l^. '3~EEj' ^pJ"^?, ^Tii^^i^ f^Trcy ^ITWtl l»»^|sh ^200 WT^ -^W (^lt^^) ^CTW '^rfN ^T??T '^prf^f^T'^R^f ^f f^t Tf^^n ^ ^fW3^T HK3THCOURT OF CHflATnSGARhTATBILASPUR Coram: Hon' ble S|iri Dhirendra Mishra, & Hon' ble S|iri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ Writ Petition Petitioner Respondents. Vs. 1) ClNo. 3806 of 2009 Raj Kumar Gupta, S/o. Shri Paddu Sao Gupta, aged about 55 years, Class-A-Contractor, R/o. Village Ramanujganj, Tahsil - Pal, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., through Managing ^ Director, Bal Ashram Parisar, Kachari Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2) | District Manager, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. fr^? (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Present: Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Oral Order (Passed on this 24th July, 2009) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J. .SiSis^^Si^wwstett's-^^'-.s^^w y.^vsi^s^y. :HC—78 ^Tr^7'; ^TI T^'7^ ?r^i <^i '?FTrNr -5^5 '^^^^ W^iW]^\ W^W^ tSTO^IS ?b^i®b •^200 ~^y~^ ^-^^ crt^^) .1F^W^fe^<hTCT ^Pffe^T^TR^ff ^ f^^ Tf^?H IF^RR ^n^i Per Dhirendra Mishra, J. By this petition, the petit] respondents to invite the petition! P12). oner has prayed for direction to the sr for negotiation for finalization of the contract work for transportation c(n the basis of his offer in response to the Notice Inviting Tender (for sh|ort, "NIT") dated 2-3-2009 (Annexure Learned counsel for the pejtitioner submits that in response to the above tender, the petitioner andj offer. The offers of the petitione; other three tenderers submitted their r and other tenderer were opened as they were found eligible for ||iarticipating in the tender process. However, considering the rate off^red by the lowest bidder was too low, the tender was cancelled and fresh NIT vide Annexure P.1 has been invited. He further submitted that as per condition-A of the NIT, finalization of the contract t^ negotiation by inviting first two lowest tenderers is permissible. However, the respondents, without resorting to negotiation with the two lowest tenderers, have issued fresh NIT vide Annexure P/.1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the conditions of NIT (Annexure P/4). We find that condition No.7.11 of ^'s>: ^li^W^w^'SiW^^f.^f^y'^ -"..""r^ ^^ XI-HC—7S :^TTN ^FI "^N' ?!m ^T?7i ^=n^' raju ^ -y^ ^ii<-;n<L 'g^TWTS, f^^TRJHT ^iNCTEiSHl^b •^200 S?!^T ^r^ ,('^i^^) '^'nw ^f"^ ^T^T 'SR7^i<rf4l^ *tj^<nf ^ f^st 7f^T? ^ 3?^i W^T ^he NlT confers p6v\reronthe-l\^inagingD?rectorto cancelany tender without assigning any reason. In that view of the matt^r, direction as prayed by the pef issued. The petition being devoid |of and is accordingly dismissed at t|ie admission stage itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge r, we are of the opinion that no such itioner in the instant petition can be Eof substance deserves to be dismissed Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge g^^^gjjgggy^ggt^'inftt-ff^^^w»?Wi^.:P«B--l^;;:"SF