^?-t—-^-» t "^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR OMsjon Benctf W.P.NO. 2-31'-^ OF 2005 ^,^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 2267227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONERS ^%) ^y _^Y^ ^w 7.M j/7 ///' 1. Puran Lal Jangde, S/o. Shri Bhaduram, aged about 65 years, Ex. M.L.A Malkharoda and Ex. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Adbhar, R/o. Village Adbhar Tahsil Malkharauda Dist Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2) Malay Mukherjee, S/o. Shri Mohan Mukherjee, aged about 27 years, R/o HIG-11, Chandela Vihar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and Dist Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS l:y State Of Chhattisgarh, ^" .-o' -^ X ^V u Acting Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2:: Principal Secretary, Jal Sansadhan Vibhag DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 3:: The Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Bango Raipur (C.G.). w WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT / WRITS, ORDER / ORDERS DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS ETC. IN PUBLIC INTEREST. rr .^r^'f^ i y XI-HC-78 \jt.T| T^W 1^ , y"a1<<i<ic, f®tc^i^^x -rrf-sc: • .1^.'. p. .^ " " .^•>.AJ... . • • • ••• iTKTZ' *ll*l<^iiRITT^ ..r................... ^^ ^^ ^?T^l>((3cli^6i<E() OT^^cSTTf^lt^ Q^HOT^T^WP .. vr ^RTT^^rf^TOT^^T chl^fc*>4^^W^f ^'f^t ^Rl^l<< ^srf^TSll^ST DB: Hon'ble'Shrl A.K.Patnaik. CJl A Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Smha. J. 27.6.2008 it hearing. I.A.No.4S67/20(» This is an Gpplteation for ur Applicatton js allowed. Heard ^iri K.A. Ansari, Srj Advocate with Shri M.K. Sinha, for the petitioner$ and Shrj P.S. Kosl^y, beputy Advocate fieneral for the State. The petitioners have fit< this Public Inte^est Litigatjon. Petitioner No.l is Ex-M.L.A., ofl JVteilkharoda Le9islative Assembly Constituency and Ex.Sarpanch of ^ram Panchoyat Adbhar. Petitioner* 10.2 is said to be a social worker. | In November-December 2004, the sspondents published a notice |nviting tenders for th<e work of sment concrete lining of branch ^cnals in Champa, Sakti dnd arsia |areas of Water Resources D^arfment. In response to the notice, tenders were submitted by variou [rrigation Project Board took a lling for fresh tenders and did j^ contractors but the Chhattisgarh ^lecision rejecting all tenders and |not hold any ne9otiations with the srers. In this PIL, the petitic(ners have contended -Hiat the satd sision of the Chhatt-isgarh Irrjg|atjon Project Board is a9ainst the (^ublic interest in as much as the ^ultivators of the area a>vered by ^iyc| T<4|^lrt^yU>Xl1^-|<|<o, Rl01'<-iy'< 'TPIW^TT^ 3TT^?T^P (^cti^c|<^) W^200 3TT^^Tcm':^=rtgy ^STT^^T^Hte ^rr^: ^rf^T OT^^T -'2-- onld chaifg^s the canals in which the work is| advantage of the irrigation* Th< that the process of calling for approval and drawing of the a^ orders would take a bn9 time of Steel, Cement and labour chequer wilt be unnecessarily Repty has been filed on the reply it is stated that the took the decjsion to i^etender consideration all relevant ospec^ by ti^e tenders forming a carte|l further stated that if the Statd tender on the rates quoted by financial loss to the tune of 12 reply, it is stated that noti<^ in|v concrete lining of bronch Ganals Water Resources Depart-ment tenders were submitted and accepted by ©overnmentond further stated •that the accept^ 8.03 above the Schedule of the icept^d ^l^[c^<invl HTRc'Jt"^f f^SS xRltCK ?t)3lf^»T31T^$T to be done, witl be deprived of the petitioners have further contended fresh tenders, scrutiny of the same, ireements ond issuan<^ of the work as a reailt of such deloy the prices would escalate and the public ex- burfdened with extna cost. be|talf of the re^ondaits. In (wra 6 of ^hhatl-tsyirh Irrigation Pro^ct 8<xxrd aforesaid works after taking into ^s includin9 the inffated rates quoted rte|. In y%xra 7 of the said reply, it is ©overnmentwould hwe accepted the tenderers, it woukl have ajffered a c|*ores opproximately. Slpara9ofthe in|viting tenders for 8 works of cement in Champa, S<rf<ti and Kharsia arecys of publidied and in re^onae there to, ^tfter processing, two tenders were tenders have been rejected. It is tenders are at the rate of 6,68 and (S.O.ft) while rates quoted by the tHe w&s si|x l^iltes SP/FS/2005 - 20,000 XI-HC-78 vjt-qT-Aii<jirtq,u>-al'<1<l<?, Rlrtl^^t <11*1<?>J ^TT^ 3TT^9TCRPI?(^cli^61^) 3Tr^^T€?7Tf^t<R 7:CT3TT^$T?S'HW ^ .-..^^ S^Tr^;?rft^3TT^$T -s- <^t^l0^'rt4+t+1c^ ^^St ^f^t^CI<< ^3rf^T3TT^9T rejected tenders were ranging| from 15 to 17% csbove schedute of rates and therefore, the tende^s quotfri9 the lti9her rates 15% to 17% above the schedule rates were rjejected. Mr.Ansari, learned countsel for the petitionens vehemently submits that in ajpporf bf th^se facts stated in reply, no records have been produced by the StaJTe ©ovemment. But on perusal of the reply, we find that the same Premendra Nath Hore, Supei^ s supported by an affidavit of SSnri lintending En9ineer, Miniwata Bango Canal, Circle no.2 who is the Officer-in-Char'ge of -riie case. In para 2 of the said affidavit, it is stott^ed that the contents of the re-tum |rafted as per his instruc^ions and are knowledge and belief and it is further from Paras 1 to 32 have been c| true ond correct to his persona^ slated in theaffidavit that +h4 statement of facts are hased on Ifie official records available. In v|iew of the said affidavit filed by 1+ie Officer-in-Charge of the case |who is no l^s than a Superintendin9 Engineer of the State ©over|nment, the owennents made in the affidavit need not be disbelieve|d by the Court and the Court nsed not insist on production of official i^ecords. In view of the said a^erments matte in the r^)ly of the respondents we dispose of the^ PIL with the direction Itiat thc said respondents will comptete the works of linin9 of the csanals in the w— XI-HC-78 ^^•r<4i«irt«,^-^l^<i<»,(fiirti^y^ ?TCT5e5TS?^T^ 3IT^9TqsR?(^crfg6l^) Wt200 3n^.$T<RTt^TT<P, ?f^T3TT^$T^HT9x ^ f^fr^R'^ri^r ^n^^T ^^- aforesaid areas os carly as po^sible gilt th^ benefitl^ the irrigatiorl faci C.C.asperryJes. so that the fapmers jn the area irrigatiorl facilities proyjded by the canals. (P.^ '^.._ y< ^ -> Sd/- Chief Justice <Pt<4l<^<nv1 ^MC^T^? f^Lcl <<Rl<<-$IN( ^3Tf^T3ft^9T Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge