HtGHCOURTOFeHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR D.B. HONSLE SHRI GiMlRENDRA MISHRA, & HC)N>BI^SHRl N.CHAND(^KAR..JJ Petjtioner Writ Petition (clNo. 5504of2010 Pravin Kumar Gautatn, ^ed about 34?years, S/o Shri DS Gautam, Diploma-in-Electrical Engineenng (Unemployed)R/o NewGaya Nagar, Dur8(e<3) Versus Respondents 1 Chhattisgarh State Power Disfribution Company Ltd. Through — Chief Engineer ^Operaffon and Maintenance) , GSEB Complex, Dagania, Raipur ^G) 492013. ^ Aditi Electricals, Jabaipyr (h4P), Through - RespondentNo.1. Prssent^ , ,,: ; • . : ..:.: ;: ' ShriV.G.Tamaskar,counse|fbrthepetitJpner. Shn Jitendra Pali, counsel for the caveator. ORALORDER (Rassed on 1" October, 2010) Per Dhjrer al dim^ J On 24.9:2010 responclentNo.l appearedoncayeatanditwasgranted three days' time to file reply to the interimapptjcatjon. However, respondent No. 1 has filed return to the writ petition. Therefore, wth the eonsent of the parUes, the matterwas heardfordispQsal. ' tn response to the tender flotjce ftoated by respondent No.1 for the work pf operation of 33/11 KV Sub-statfons located at various places of Chhattisgarh Stete on contract basis, the petitioner alsosubmitted his offers t>y the due date. Thetenders were ppened on 26.82010. .On scfutinyot the offers ofthe petitioner, it was noticedthatthe petitioner had not mentioned any variation for commercial as wellastechnical temls and conditions. l-1e was calfed upon to go through the observations made during scrutiny and in eomptiancethereof,to^mishthedesireddocunTOrftsandinfofmationiate§t^^^^^^ 10thS6ptember,2010. Grievance of the pefiUoner isthat his offer was ttie fowe^, even then the work was not awarded to him and the same has been awarded to respondent No.2. tn these circumstances, ttie petitioner^has prayed ftw quashing of frie contract awarded in favour of r^pondent No.2 by issuance of appropriate wrtt,order and tiirection. t^arr^ cou^el for resppratentNo.1 submitsWatas (^CIayseS o^^ Annexure-1 of the tender doeuments, the contractors were etassified into Iwo [•mfiirt-iz 2. categQries:eategoryA—RegularGontractors;andCategoryB—Unemployed Etectrtcal Engineers (U6E). The bidders were atlfflwed t6 submit thei^^ only under one of the two categories. 80% of the woric was reserved for Category A whereas rest of fhe 20% work was reserved for Cat^ory B. The petitioner has defiberately suppressed the above condition of the tender in the writ petHion. The conditions .applicable to the contractofs telling uncter Category A and Gategory 8 are dffferent as UEEs enjoy some relaxed cohditions as steted in <?lause 5 of Annexure-t of Special Gonditipns in comparison to the qualification for Gategory Acontractors.The technical and commercial bids ofthe contractin questipn were opened on26:8.2010. Since the petitipner was found quafified in his technjcal bid, theprice bid was opened on 14.9.2010. However, offer ofthe petiBoner was found to be abnormally low and unworkabteand glaringlyopptisedtotheobsen/atipnofthestatutorylaws oftheland and therefpre, hjs offerwas not accepted. The petifloner submttted an application of Annexure R-1/2,whichwasreceivedon 15.9.2010,whereintt was mentioned that in tHe Annexure 1 point B of the tender it is clear that minimum 01 and maximum 05 substation will be allotted to eaeh UEE on rate/counter offer rate as approved by the GSPDCL and he is reacly to work on the rate/countec ofFer rate as approved bythe CSPDCL. Howevec, this fact has been suppressed in the writ petition. Respondent No.1 has already replied to the petitioner's lettar of Annexure R-1/2 and directed him tofumish certain information videMemodated 20.9.2010 (Annexure R-1/3) and his request vide Annexure R-1/2 is stifl under cpnsideration. l-1eardleamed counset for the parties and perused the material availabte onrecord. FromthedocumentsanhexedwiththepetitionaSalsowtUithecounter affidavit, it is manifesUy ctear that the peUjoner was called upon to complywitti certain observations made during scrutiny of tencter papers wde Memo of Annexure P/2 as well as Memo 6f Annexure R-1/3. rt appears that the petitioner did not cQmplywith the directfons contatned in the dbcuments of Annexure P/2;pricebkls wereopened on 14.9.2010; thepetitipnerhashimsetf expressed his wjllingness to work on the rate/couhter crffer rate as approyed by respondent No.1 vide his h4emo of Annexure R-1/2 and e same is under conskleratioh of r^pondent No.1 ais it appears from their reply clated 20.9.201Q of Annexure R-1/3. The petitener has fited this peUtten by suppressing the afbresaid facts. From perusal of Armexurey appended wjth thectocumentofAnnexureP/l.wefindthatttecontractorswereclassJfifidtnto two categories: Category A & Category B;^and offers could be niade onjx; K- i^s^KaS&fi&ii^ ••Si, •^y .^.' ''•:! ^"^' ,f^ agair^anyor^rofthecafegories.ThjsfacthasalsoncAbeen^ Ihe'writpetttion^.,..^; '\ -.:':-J,'^:;':.' '•..:' -.;' ,\ •,: •'••.. .^ :::'- - '. ':. Thus, considering tRe above facts, we ^ rf that the petitioneris ncrt er^ted forany relief agam ctaimed in the petition. Accpticljngly, the peBtjon being without anySubstance is hereby dismjssed at fce admission stage ttself. Sd/- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge R.N. Cbandrakar Judge