^, ^- /.-^, ^ \ ; \^ INTHE P1GH COL^RT OF TUDICATUPsE AT BILASPUE VVrit Petition No: J^J-3 of 2002 PETITIONER ".^.. M/s R K Steel Fabricators, Tiyough its proprietor, Kajesh Kumai' Singh, S/o Narayaii Prasad Singh/ Aged about 29 years., Resident of CNtra Electromcs ^^"€^^^ Resident of Chltra Ele. ^%?L?-T^: . 10' pushPanJali Comp: •^\^\..^^n^'- "' Ml'h^t^^-^ f^1lr-34< wjs<"^ ^:^^^"" ^ ^ ...^ RESPONDENTS : ^irg^ >lex near Niharika talldes/ Korba , Dist. Korba/ Clihattisgarh. 1. 4^-2. ^3- Chhattisgarh State Electridty Bom'd, tlu'ough Its Secretan^ Chhattisgarh Electridty Board/ Daiigia, Raipur. Chhattisgarh The Supdt. Engineer (P&W), C'SE^ Korba (• E) M/s Arun Constructions Through its Proprietor, Rajendra Tiwaii, MIG-3 1/35 Maharana Pratap Nagar/ Dist. Korba Chhattisgarh. Writ petition imder article 226/227 of the Coiistitiitioyi of Isidia for ^of appropriate ^vrit, ^vrits, order direction etc. tt X^HC-22 ^^ ^I^K^ ^i^^ fe 3((^F T^E^ wnrwteua-£A;-le-'4-^t 2002^ fe^^S-^ ^Et^: <i(^E '^- + SB^^^^^I 29-01-2003 Shri Saujay K Agarwal, coun Shrl Matiitidra Shrivastava i^^feAiftA<^ i^@<S No.l &2. el for fhe petitioner. counsel for the respondeuts Shri Awadh Tripatiii, couiise| for the respoiident No,3. Adinittedly, ttiere was SOBI| objection regardin.g award of contract After notfce-fhe iiiatterpiad conie up on 12-8-2002, on which date fhe Court had directed th.at ifso advised, fhe aiithority may take steps t6 negotiate for a l^esh ofifer, Thereafter, tiie matter had.coine up on 13-01-2003 ^|iereiiithe foUowuig order was passed (relevant portion is reprod^ced here): une up on 12-8-2002 lie Court had obsexved so advised, take steps or invite fresh offers. It ".,... When tlie niatter d considering fhe dispute, ^ fhat fhe Authorities xaay, j| to negotiate for fresh offei / is stated by the leamed cfc)unsel that in tei-ms of tiie direction they had askjd for fre.sh offers which have been received asid l|)oking to th.e objectbn fh.at was raised by the p^fcitioiier, the Court feels th.at there should not be a|iy mipediaient ni takiag a decision on tlie basis d Awadh Trip^thi, leam| respondeiit No.3 also statj wUl not be aggiieved if a basis of fresh ofFers. leamecl counsel for tlie pe| to obtaio. iiistnietioHS." F the fresh offers, Shri |d counsel fbr the ?s that respondent No,3 lecision is taken on. the liowever, Shri Agarwal, titioner waoits soiae tinie —2^- m XI-HC-22 ^lfe^l efel ^M^ l^k^ / - + /^ <^-"' NW^It '3^ -<IRKrt€t»^CJIWE^ E«fllHI|t 3j^?F "qsra? ,...&oiL^o»jio.(.i.4w^ »^(<S|» fes^i <»ti^^tat^: tifea —z^ Today when fhe inatter h| couusel for the petitioner state| already been filed to the effect f^ copy whereof is Annexure R-4, fairly stated by leanied counsel d respondent No.3 fhat fartlier act| fresh offers received as reUected No.4751/02 8& 429/2002 forvad »^fa<3-r~*Ei^|^.:t^|,'tfatS^ iF3RjP®ii^^i^il; te coine up for hearing, leamed I that an. additional retura has ^t fresh bids have been received^ In fhis view of tiie raatter, it is |n behalf of fhe petitk)ner as also Lon niay be taken on fhe basis of ba Annexure R-4 to tlie additioual retum, Ordered accordiagly. The writ petition staads d^posed of Coiisequently M.W.P. ituig stav aad I.A. Nos.4192/2002 8& 4901/2002 are staiid dispos.edlof Sd/- P.C. Naik Judge ^