— - HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, & HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR.JJ Petitioner Writ Petition (ct No. 5485 of 2010 M/s Aditi Travels Through its partners Dushyant Prakash aged about 47 years, S/o MD Prakash R/o B-1924 Yamuna Vihar, Jamnipali, Distt. Korba. Versus RespQndents 1. 2. 3. South Eastem Coalfield Ltd. throughits Chairman cum Managing Director, Bilaspur. Chief General Manager, Gevra Area, Gevra Preject Distt. Korba. M/s R.R. Services, 443 Indira Complex Transport Nagar, Korba. Present: . [ Shri Parag Kotecha, counse! for the petitioner. Shri PS Koshy, counsel for the respondent No:1. ORAL ORDER (10th December, 2010) PerDhirendra Mishra. J In response to Notice Inviting Tender (in short "NIT^ dated 9 January, 2010 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner also submitted his offer for the work. His offer being the lowesti.e. hiring of 8 numbers of light motor vehicles for 12 hours per day at the rate indicated in the work order dated 29 March, 2010 (Annexure P/2) was accepted. The order for hiring three more vehicles was placed on 31 Mareh, 2010 (AnnexureP/3) However, the respondents have floated fresh NIT on 11 May, 2010 (Annexure P/4) without intimation to the petitioner and without the knowledge of the petitioner, and they have issued work order to respondent No.3 in pursuance of the above NIT. Shri Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the fresh NIT of Annexure P/4 was illegally issued and in ;2^ ^13^'-®7;N.. f '^ris^ K 2. <'8y'y sSffy' pursuance thereof, the work order has been issued in favour of respondent No.3 at an exorbitant cost of Rs.18,500/- per month for one vehicle for three years, which is likely to cause enormous loss to the Public Exchequer @ Rs.4,000/- per month. The respondent officers were aware of the fact that the same work is being undertafcen by the petitioner in the same route at a much tesser cost, even then the subsequent NiT has been finalized without -intimation to the petitioner. 03. On the other hand, Shri PS Koshy, iearned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 submits thatthe instant petition is not mainfainabie as it's a purely contractual matter. There is difference in the tender conditions as the offer, in the case of the fit'st tender, was invited for 12 hours per day, whsreas, in the subsequent tender, the vehicte is to be provided for 24 hours. The subsequent N'T was given a wide publicity by way of publication in the newspapers, website as well as in the Notice Boards of al! the areas of SECL and therefore, it was open to the petitioner to participate in the subsequent tender process, however, the petitioner did not partjcipate in it. 04. Having heard learned counse! for the partiss, having regard to the facts and circumstances ofthe case, considen'ng the facts mentioned m the counter affidavit, and also considering that the petitioner himseff did not participate in the subsequent tender process, the petitloner's prayer, in the instant petition, for direction to the respondents to issue work ordey for one vehicie as per terms and conditions ofthe tsndsr notice dafed 11 May, 2010 in favour of the petitioner, cannot be granted. We find no substance in this petition, the same deserves to be and is, accordingfy, dismissed at the adrnjssion staae itseif. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge V-- Sd/- ^ R.N. Chandrakari Judge