< -^ '?RST 'FTFFf^T '^ocT -qiqi<?iq fcloiKi^ ^.^.) ^^£^ ^.r/\ Contempt Betitton No.->^ ^ / 2009 Tp^f ^I^^Hci cpT^tT ^RT ^ : Pl^l^l^wll^ 3TT. ^TT. c{7RfrfT, -v^ 42 ^, Picii^ -^f -^rs T^H ^. 173 •a^ ^. 1 ^l^^-ll^l^ 1?RT ^eTT, ?T^. 'cr ^Tr-^en- r.^2^ (^.TT.) .^lfqcpicpa^ R^o<s ^Jt ^T-TT^T ^?, .^TO^er^, ^H^T ST^T ^TTcR cbiq^^l-l, "cf7r<?6TT, ^TT-^RerT (®.'TT.) ^-^: ^^ 's.^':[ .^ai\qi<?l ^^ 3fci+iii<iicpal ^ r^ ^^- ^^~ ^ ^-' ....••^41T1T11 ^TTft^T 31'd4d 314^<i 215 ^TR^T ^'Rtil^ ^^14(Sd 3RpfcT en^T 12 ^l^ld^ 3raTTH';TT 3>rf ra^[971 ^lfcl4)|chdl ^F^ f^FrT ^T ^^HT t l^ - . ^y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MQHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. Contempt Case (Ct No.364/2009 PETITIONER M/s. Mohd. Kasim RESPONDENT Versus Janardan Ker Petition under Article 215 of the Constitution oflndia readwith Section 12 ofthe Contemot ofCourt Act Aooearance: Shri Sheikh Niyamatullah appears in person on behalf of the petitioner. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Shri B.D. Guru, counsel for the respondent. ORAL-ORDER (Passedon 11.01.2011) Heard. 2. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging violation of order dated 24th April, 2009 passed by this Court in W.P. (C)No. 1785/08. 3. Submission of the petitioner is that vide order dated 24th April, 2009 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1785/08, this Court had dismissed the petition as not pressed on the submission made on behalf of the respondent-NTPC in the writ petition that the period for which the petitioner was not to be issued tender enquiry, has already -2- 'f"y---^ '^ I^SR,] y^ ^oA expired on 6.6.2008 and thereafter, the respondent in the writ petition have already commenced issuing tender enquiry to the petitioner and further that as and when the tender enquiries are made for subsequent contract work, the same shall be issued to the petitioner as per eligibility criteria and norms of the NTPC in future and where the petitioner is found eligible, the work shall be allotted to the petitioner also. The submission of petitioner is that after the order was passed by this Court, tender enquiry in respect of 4 works were issued but no information was given to the petitioner, whereas, according to the petitioner, he was eligible for the said work as per the eligibility criteria. The petitioner made an application on 26.11.2009 for certain information in exercise of his rights under Right to Information Act, but those informations were also not supplied. Further submission is that though in the year 2008, 2 tenders enquiries were sent to the petitioner, even though the petitioner participated, he was not declared L -1. It is also submitted that many tenders enquiries are being issued, but no such enquiry is bein§ made from the petitioner even though the petitioner is eligible and had successfully executed number of works in the earlier years. The petitioner further submits that even after infonnation was sought with regard to the Contractors/Companies to whom contract has been awarded between period from 5.5.2005 to 23.4.2009 and from 24.4.2009 to 26.11.2009, the information was not supplied. The submission -3- 1 ^^^^ l m^;y] \,^^-''.. •^^^" is that even though in the past, the petitioner had executed various works, now, after the petition has been decided, tender enquiry, as stated above, has not been issued nor contract is being awarded, which clearly shows that the respondents are willfully disobeying the order passed by this Court on 24th April, 2009. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not disclosed an}^where in his petition nor has made any averment that the respondent are still treating the petitioner as blacklisted. He submits that in the absence of any speciflc pleading in that regard, the contempt petition itself is misconceived. His further submission is that the order of this Court clearly shows that statement was made on behalf of the N.T.P.C. that as and when the tender enquires are made for subsequent contract work, the same shall be issued to the petitioner as per eligibility criteria and norms of the NTPC aiid where the petitioner is found eligible, the work shall be allotted to the petitioner. It is submitted that the tender enquiries are being made in accordance with the Works Policy dated 13.12.2001 filed as Annexure R-l, which talks of 3 different kinds of tender nsimely- Open Tender, Limited Tender & Single Tender. He further submits that after lifting the ban from the petitioner, 13 tender enquiries have already been issued to the petitioner till 15.2.2010, copies of which have been placed on record as Annexure R-2. Tender enquires were opened in which it was ~^s ,'!^ \ f ^..^.^- I. li 'y^'s^^ i -4- \^ /0 found that the petitioner had submitted his bid for 4 tender enquires and after scrutiny, petitioner's offer was found to be L- 10, L-2, L-4 8s L-6 respectively as shown in the Chart (Annexure R-3). In so far as 4 tenders dated 9/23.12.2009,23.12.2009, 19/26.9.2009 & 12/17.11.2009 is concerned, out of them, in 3 cases, tender enquires were not issued, whereas, in respect of 1 out of 4 tenders, tenders enquiry was issued to the petitioner. In respect of 3 tenders, enquires were not issued as it belonged to Limited Tender Category and therefore, it is not possible and practical to issue tender enquires to all the enlisted/empanelled parties in each case of the limited tenders. Learned counsel for the respondent lastly submitted that the background in which the statement was made before this Court is related to a case of blacklisted/banning of the petitioner. The respondent have not acted against their statement made before this Court because, subsequently, the issuance of tender enquiry or award of contract is being made only as per the Policy and in none of the cases, the petitioner has been treated as blacklisted. He submits that if the petitioner has any grievance either in case he was not issued tender enquiry or where tender enquiry was issued, he has not been awarded contract, it is open for him to challenge the decision. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that later on, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition (C) No. 7450/09, challenging the action ofthe respondent authority, where various issued: raised by the petitioner are pending. /.^"'^ /^'.^^ "v^ ^ ^ -5- •%^,. \,^ 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. From the order dated 24th April, 2009 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1785/08, it is revealed that writ petition was dismissed as not pressed and the Court, while dismissing the petition, recorded the statement made on behalf of NTPC/respondent therein. From the statement which was made before the Court, all that appears, is that it was stated that the period for which the petitioner was not be issued tender enquiry expired on 6.6.2008 and in respect of subsequent period, it was stated that tender enquiry shall be issued and work shall be allotted according to the eligibility criteria and norms. In the entire contem.pt petition, there is no averment by the petitioner that he is not being issued tender enquiry or not being allotted works by treating him as blacklisted. From the averments made in the petition, all that can be discerned is that in some cases, tender enquiry was not issued to the petitioner and he has not been allotted work. Such averments by itself, cannot be said to be in any manner an act committing contempt of any of the order and proceedings of this Court. At the first place, there was no specific or categoric direction by this Court to deal with the petitioner in a particular manner in the matter of award of contract in its order dated 24th April, 2009. In the return also, the respendent have stated that in number of cases, tender enquiries were actually issued to the petitioner and the petitioner's -6- \^^ eligibility was considered according to the norms. Therefore, I do no find that there is any contempt committed by the respondent in those cases where tender enquiries were issued or where work has not been allotted, as in none of those cases, it has been established by the petitioner that it was because of any ban. Whether or not the petitioner iseligible either for being called for tender enquiry or for allotment of the work as per laid down eligibility criteria and norms, is a matter for which the petitioner is at liberty to agitate in appropriate proceedings. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the petition; the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that it would be open for the petitioner to take recourse to remedy as may be available to him under the law where the petitioner has not been given any tender enquiry notice or work has not been allotted upon consideration of his tender. 7. Consequently, the rule is discharged. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen