.r^l^H^ln •Ui¥ ^^ .-N ^y i:' 6 /' c^ \ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cl N0.^937 OF 2009 PETITIONER ^ Indian Drilling & Minning Co. BA- 52 F, Rajdanga Sarat Park, Kasba, Kolkata, West Bengal. Through Proprietor Gopal Modi S/o late Hanuman Prasad Modi, aged about 71 Years, Occupation Business, R/o FE-.424, Salt lake, Police station Salt Lake III, Working for gain at BA-52, Rajdanga Sarat Park, Police Station- Kasba, Kolkata. ^ • ^ -) VBRSUS .7 ^ ''.>xy ^s/yy .^''^' /' ^^ / ^ y' ^y ^y RESPONDENTS ^ 1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, through the Chief General Manager, Seepat Road, Post box No. 60, (Miniratres), Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. The General Manager (M.M.) - I, Seepat Road, Post box No. 60, (Miniratres), Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Materials Manager, Seepat Road, Post Box no. 60, (Miniratres), Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Union of India, Department of Coal and Minerals, through the Principal Secretary, New Delhi. 7 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22^0FTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . 6 HIQH GOIMT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR O B: Hon'bte Shri Justfee I.M. Ouddusi Hon'bte Shri Jusfice Prashant Kumar Mishra. Writ Petition (Ct No.6937 /2009 PETITIONER RESPgNQENTS Versus (ndian DriUing & Minning Co. South Eastem CoaWiekte Limfted and others. Shri Rakesh Pandey. counsel for the petittoner. Shri Praveen Das, counse! for re^?ondents No. 1.2 and 3. Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Assistant Solfcitor Generat for Union <rf SrsdiWrsspondent No. 4. S»erS.M.€bidtolua.J. ORAL ORDER (18.06.2010) Heard. (2) 0) (4) Tte p^itioner partteipated in the competitive bid of a contract wtth respect to suppty of Bum Skte Boring Machine in the year 2008, but they coutel not comptete the contract within time prescribed under tenns and conditions of the contract. The responctents granted further 30 days time to complete the contract. However, on safer side they Invfted fresh tender, but the tast date of submissfon of the tender papers was much after date of completion of extended contract. The petttioner has raised grievance through this petitton that once ^) days time was granted, respondents coutel npt have invlted fresh tender prior to completion of 30 days. The petittoner cannot be said to be effected adversely in inviting fresh tenders. There could have been a grievance if contract woukt bave been given to \^)\ ^ 1^.^"^^ '??%% "-^^' •^•??"- (5) <6) ^- anyone prior to expiry of 30 cteys period extended in favow of the petltioner, but that has not been done. Rather 30 days extended period of contract was expiring on 20^h September, 2009 and the last date of inviting fresh tender was 30^ October. 200&. Therefore, there is no iW^alfty herein^ if the petitioner woutd have compl^ed the work wfthin time, naturally the advertisement to invlke the tender woufet have become infructuous and tender proceeding woutd have been dropped by the respondents, but just to save time it has been done and we have seen that the petltioner remained failed to fulfitl the conkracl even during the extended period of 30 days. Further, leamed counsel for the petttioner has raised grieyance that »n the 2nd tender notice the petftioner was not atlowect to participate. tt is a matter of consideration that because of the default committed by the p^ffioner in fulfiUmg the terms and conditions, In the competling circumstances, me respondents invited fresh tender for the sanf job and in that circumstances, a defautter could not be alioiwed to participate. tn view of the facts and circumstances of the above, we are of the opinion that the writ petltton is misconceived and te therefore dismissed. (7) No orcter as to costs. Sd/- LM. Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge y^