JHIK3HCOURT©FdUDieAtl,.IREGHHATTISGARH:BILASPUR DIVIS!Q BENCH COI^M ^ HQN^LE^^&R. NAYAK, C^ & HON'BI.E^!SMR ,R.DESHMUKH,»J. PETITIQNER •^^"'•^ 1W WntPetJtjo^No.lSQr^ZOOe ?iy!i^"Mphdi Kasim.through — F^rtner ^;ghiel<liiNiyamtulla,Agedabout42. ^^^^^ € ^^^^^^^^ g^^^^^^^^^^ 5:?SS??®1^9a RS ^';^r^ai::/'1a^lI:::;&:^Distrirt-; ;Mil8i<l a^^^}:^':;'- SffijiSffis^ FtESBESNDENTS ^Ght'teittisgarfl State^Electncity ^Boardi Thi'bBgh ?tKe;MemBer'of Generation, Danganiya, Near Ra|kumar Coll^e, Raipur(C.G^ Ttie Chief Engineer (Generation Hasdev Thiermal Power. Stati6n, ©MhMUSgarh State Electricity Board Korba (Wesf), Post Jailgaon.^^T^ Katghora^ District Korba (C.G^ The Superinten'dent Engineer, (Purcha^e & Works) Hasclev Thermat Powsr Station, GI'iHattlsgarh .State ElectriGity Board, Post Jailgaon, Tahsit Katghora, District Korba (C.G^ 18Q <sFsa. Presenf: ShriiAnahcf Kumar Tiwari, teamed counsel for the petitioner. Shri .AshutosM Singh GaMarwar, learned counsel for C.S.E.BJfrespoitaents. ORAISORDER lPassedOni25ttlJuty,2006) ThefolloWingoralorderofthe^Courtwaspasseclby S.R.;NAVAK.ICJ.:1:': •.". .•''••••..•:<:::-..V::^ lnthiswritpetition,^epetitionerNiOtsacOntractorcom withoyt any justification, ^e respondenis^ ^ issue tender m 181 A..^:-- ^ •^-- documents to him when he approached them for supply of tender documents in response to tender Notification No.165/2006. (2) The facte of the case, in brief, are as follows: The Superintendent Engineer (Pyrchase & Works) Hasdev Thermal Power Station.Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board at Jailgaon issued tender NotifiGation No.165/2006,dated 27-02-2006 floating ten tenders for JET< various works. The last date to apply with regard to the Tender Specification N0.021-1-/BLR/T 288/06 was 06/04/2006and with regard to Tender Specification No.021-10/BLRH' 290/06 was 07/04/2006. According to the petitioner.he personally wentto the office ofthe third respondent on 30/03/2006 for obtaining tender documents; the third respondent refused to supply tender documents to the petitionerorally observing that since the petitioner has instituted a civil suit against the Electricity Board in civil Court, Katghora he would not supply tender documents to the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 31/03/2006, he wrote a letter to the Chief Engineer (Generation) Hasdev Thermai Power Station, Chhattisgarh ^ State Electricity Board.Korba (West) Jailgaon, the second respondent herein, by registered postand also through electronic Fax communication complaining against the refusal of the third respondent to supply tender documents. A copy ofthesaid letter is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-P/2. That was followed, according to the petitioner, by one more communication addressed to the second respondent on 05.04.2006. The petitioner complaining that even the second respondent did not respond to the two communications filed thiswrit petition on 10.04.2006 praying forthe following reliefe: "7. REyEF(S)_SQUGHT 182 -3 \ «® ^ -«" The petitioner most respectfully and humbly prays for the following reliefe:- The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased: 7.1 to kindly direct the respondents by issuing a writ of mandamus tothe effectthptthe tender documents may be supplied to the petitioner and also while doing so the bids of the petitioner may be considered. 7.2 to kindly quash any order or letter issued by the respondents finalizing or awardjng contract in relatjon p- to Tender Speciflcation 021-10/BLR/T 288/06 & Tender Specjfication 021 -10/BLR/T 290/OS 7.3 to kindly quash the tender process with regard to the Tender Specification 021-10/BLR/T 288/06 & Tender Specification 021-10/BLR/T 290/06 and direct the respondents to invite fresh bids and confirm the same asperlaw. 7.4 to kindly grant anyother reliefas may be deemed just and proper under the facts and cireumstances of the case. 7.5 to kindly allow the cost and expenses of the petition". (3) On sen/ice of notice, a detailed reply was filed on behalf of the ^; respondents. In the reply, the respondents have squarely denied the assertion made by the petitioneras to what transpired on 30.03.2006. The respondents, however, have acknowledged receipt of the letters of the petitioner sent tothe second respondent on 31.03.2006 and 05.04.20)6. Para 5 ofthe return reads as follows: "5. That however, a letter dated 31.03.2006 was received and entered in the Receipt Register, which is evident from Annexure-R/2. That as submitted above, as per para 2ofthe NIT the tender documents could be obtained from the office of S.E. (P&W), CSEB, Korba Weston payment of Tender Fee and if, it was required by post; then additionally, a fee of Rs.75/- through crossed Postal Order/DD was also to be ^ i.iSa^ 183 'f^ ^- -^- accompanied along with the supporting documents, as required in para 4 of the NIT. It is submitted that the petitioner has neither approachedto the office of5.E(P&W), HTPS, Korba West nor, any application from the petitfoner along with necessary tender fee/additional fee for supplyof Tender document by Post was received in the Ofo S.E. (P&W), CSEB, Korba West. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner is frivolous, and is only an after thought, fbr the reasons best known to the- petttioner, and only to harass the respondents. (4) Furthermore, in para 9 of the return, itis stated that after processingthe tenders, twocontracts have beenawarded to M/s. Rukmani EngineeringWorks,Jamnipali,KorbaandM/s.BrilliantElectrteal,Jamnipali, Korba vkfeOrder No.021-10/BLRyT-290/06 2147, dated 15.06.2006 and OrderNo.021-10/BLR/T-288/0621%dated16.06.2006respectwelly. (5) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuouslycontend that the refusal ofthe third respondent to supply tender doeuments on 30/03/2006 though the petitioner fulfilled all formalitieswas totally objectionable and unjustified and that had yiolatedthe petitioner's right to equatity guaranteed under Article 14oftheConstifa<tionoflndia.LeamedStandingCounselfortheC.B.S.E., per contfa, drawing our attention to what is averred in the retum would submit that no representative of ttie petjtioner approached ths third respondentoh 30/03/2006 forsupply of tender documents and what is averred inthe writ petition to the contrary is factually incorrect. Learned Standing Counsel would further contend that though a letterwas received by the second respondent from thepetitioneron 31/03/2006, tender documente were not supplied to the petitionec, because, he did not pay the 184 Sa&a. 1 i s»" ^ •s- fee for supply of tender forms and additional cost of Rs. 75/- towards postal charges to send tender documents by post apart from not fulfilling the other formalities fixed bythe N.I.T. (6) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, a short question that arises for our decision is whether the respondents-authorities of the CBSE acted illegally in refusing supply oftender documents to the petitioner with regard to the two contracts referred to above. We do not think so. The self-serving statement made bythe petitioner in the writ petition with regard to what transpired on 30/03/2006 cannot be accepted as a true version, particularly, in view of the denial of that version bythe respondents on oath. tt is a caseof assertion and denial on oath and except thetwo, there is absolutely no other independent material produced by the petitioner on the basis of which we could possibly accept the version of the petitioner as correct. (7) This takes us to the question whether after receipt ofthe letterof the petitioner bythe second respondent on 31/03/2006, therespondente were undera legal obligationto furnish tender documents to the petitioner. The defence ofthe respondents not to furnish tender documents tothe petitioner is that the petitioner did not send demand draft towards the fee payable for supply of tender documsnts and additional fse of Rs. 75/- tcwards postal charges apart from not complying with other formatities prescribed by the N.I.T. Admittedly, with the letter dated 30/03/2006 and even the subsequent communication dated 05/04/20(®,the petitioner did not send demand draft towards the cost of the tender forms and additional expenditure to be incurred by the Board for sending tender documents by post. If that was the reason for the respondents not to send tender 185 -6- :^ ^ documentstb the petitioner, the Court would not be justified in condemhing the refusal of the reSponclentsto supply the tender documents to the petitidner. Be that as it may, now, it is stated that the Board after processihg the tendere of the^ eligible persons which were in order has awarded the contract t6 the mdst^suitabte two contractors referred to above. They are^also not made parties^tci^ewrjt petition. Any intervention at this di^nceoftimewQuldcomemtheway^crftialtiTO.thepublicwork.wMehwill not beconduchre to public interest^l-boking from any angle, this is not a fit case where we should step in under Article 226 of the Constitution and upsettliecontractsalreadyawardedtothetwocontractors.T^fietitfo^ ^herefore.devoidofmeritanditis'accsrdinglydismissed.NocoSts. Sd/- Chiefjustice Sd-/ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^^ •{' ^ ^