69 IHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram: Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon’ble Shri R’iN. Chandrakar, JJ Writ Petition (C) No‘1 860 of 2011 aghav Advertising, Nathani Complex, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, Through Shri Ritesh Krishna Agrawal, S/o K.K. Agrawal, aged about 35 years, R/o Behind I.T.l., Near Gurudwara, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Petitianer e Vs. Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, through the Commissioner, Municipai Corporation, Raipur, Distt. Raipur(CG) Respondent Present: Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Smt Ayetri Sengupta, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (07.4.2011) Heard on admission. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as projected in the petition are that Municipal Corporation, Raipur invited tenders for erection of traffic booths in the squares and tri—squares of Raipur City on 13.01 .2011 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner participated in the tender and offered Rs.13 lacs for the aforesaid work. However, it was decided to call for fresh tender and accordingly the respondent published another tender notice on 26.02.2010. Even the second tender was not finalized perhaps because the petitioner was the oniy tenderer who participated in the tender process and submitted its offer at Rs.8 lacs. 3. Shri Shukia, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that in the 2” tender also, the petitioner was the only participant in bid of Rs.8 lacs, which was higher than the offset price fixed by the Corporation. Therefore, there was no occasion R for the respondent/Corporation for publishing fresh tender for the 3” time. They ought to have processed tender, which was submitted by the petitioner in response to the notice inviting tender dated 26.02.2011 and in these circumstances, the tender process commenced by tender notice dated 24.03.2011 (Annexure P—3) deserves to be set aside 4. Heard learned counsei for the petitioner. 5. lndisputably, the tender submitted by the petitioner has not been accepted and the entire tender process has been cancelled probably on the ground that there was only single participation on both the occasions. Clause-15 of the tender notice of Annexure P~1 empowers the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation to cancel the tender. Since there was no concluded contact between the petitioner and the respondent/Corporation, the petitioner cannot raise the grievance against the cancellation of tender and re-tendering as the petitioner has no legal right to compel the respondent to process the tender which was earlier submitted by the petitioner in response to notice inviting tender dated 26.2.1 1. 6. We find no substance in this petition. The same deserves Priya to be and is accordingly dismissed. J Sd/- Sd/- ‘ RN. CHANDRAKAR Dhirendra Mishl‘a Judge ‘ Judge ’/ ,