XI-HC 78 ’ WWWW =7 m QQQC> LH§3qi 200% mm (Wm WW wW %a1’man%¥r ?rashanf Singh, Son 9f SE‘H‘i Krishm Eaj Singiq, aged abom‘ 30 years, Occupm‘wn Contracfers‘nip, Residem' 0f Avamb'na'm, Hmico Coiony, Danfewada (CG) ‘h/ersus— WWW WWW ’wmm UETITTONEQ: RESPON DENTS: S‘m‘re of €h§1af?§sgarh; ‘?hmugh: Th2 Secremry, Departmen§ of ‘Food, Tmmporm?ion cmd Civi} Supp§ie$, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C5) T a he. Cii 5mm Civi! 5u§p§ies Corpomfion Limifeq‘, 3a} Ashmm Campus: Kachahari C‘nswk, Head Offica, Qaipur (CG), 'fhrough fine Managing Diracfor. The §anem3 Manager, Transcor‘m'rian, CG. 5mm: Civil Sunpiies Corporafion L§mifed, Ba! Ashram Campus, Kachahari Chawk, Head Offica, Ragwr (£6) The Diswicf Managar, Transaorm‘rion, 6.6. Smfa Gvi! Suppiies Corporcmon Limwed, Damawada {C6} J“ awawlwc wsv avg”;- Divisian Sanchi Han. S?zr§ ahirendm M§shm 6: Han Shri R N Chandrakar CRT i?—3-20Q9:- Shri AK SEukia, counsai for? The pai‘i’ioner.‘ mm” m 200 ' MW(W€U. WWW ammm WWW ‘—&, y’ WWiwm $a€§mm 5‘ The ?ood Offiser, Danfewacia {Cé} 6.' Mam} Maiwya, $on of Mahesh Mdviya, aged abouf 38 year's, Residen‘r of Bus Sfcmd Road, Damewada (C6) T‘ Aw} Agrawnk Son of Nagarma! Agrawai, aged abou‘i‘ 35 years, Residen‘r of Kafiyar Rus, t Danfewada (CG) mm mrzog; mW’(W) mmm ammm WW‘h‘wm g. QKWW i mmmm .’ service report From perusal of fine same, if awears Thm‘ respowdem Na.7 has been served (m 14-8-2009 Whereas, raspondam Na.6 has decEinad *0 accepf fine n9’rica‘ 1, The Qwi‘riomr has fibd fha ins-mm petifion and prayed for quashiwg of #he order dafed 28-"-2009 (Annexure-P/?} §n pursuance of i'frze Order dafed 23—7—2909 wi‘?h g direcfion f0 occap? fender submHtrad by fha pai‘rioner affirming ?ha o Adar &m‘ed 30“ June, 2$09 (Annexur'e— Pia). griafh; smfedi fad-s of the case are: ‘Hnaf fhe respondan? Corporm'ion f!oa‘§'aet Transpor‘r Tander under rhe' door suppiy *rransparfafien Tender scheme far The year 2009-10 for base depo? ' Danfewadd. The pe‘ii‘rioner and respmden‘is Nae d ?’ periicipaied in the I abgve “render‘ The fimncia! bid 9% responder}? No.7 was n9? opened, as he ski no? quaHfy ir; fhe Technical bid. Respondeni‘ No.6 quo‘fed ‘i‘he iowes? ra‘k’ei heweveri since he quote§ $1412 mfg in pencil and no? in pen, The Dis‘rri‘c‘? Commif‘ree recammendeé; 1'0 eccep? “the offer of The petitioner vide Annexure-Pii. Responden‘f Nic.2 ! wde . . lire memo dated 30*!” June, 2009 ‘ {Amexure—i3/3) direated The Disit'rici Manciger 1'0 make a cross effer if) The pe‘rifioner on rhTes mentioned? in ihe aforesaid memo. In 'ihe even? oi wrefusa! by Mm, “the cross effer / 7 r i ehouid be made To o‘i’her bidders. T‘ee i \* r\wr v '\\’ i e «wwwwmm—m ’ ww—mwwmvmwew fw ’ @ m m zoo amm (13W) WWW ~_.< r WM $5¢EIW _\, %saims‘n%¥t order of Annexure-P/3 was imm The pei’iTimer Vida his Ie'Her d accep'? fhe revised mfe and expr‘ m1 fhe mfes gu0?ac§ by him in his The case of The pafMonar memo of Aanaxure-Plé dared 1 axecu‘re The agreemen‘? wmwin 3 headquar+€r dafed 30% June, 20( 1ms wMiagnass I m accep? cross‘ Kawkglyan. However, iasfead paifioner, “me \res‘somdem €0Epem‘i’isn vide memo daieci 283—2869 direcfed respondenf N0.6 for exe 1"? is “iiie fur‘i'iqer case 0‘? drm‘f agreemen‘r (Annexure—P/8) 7-2009 ens “we. D§sfric¢ 'Mamge éirecfed ‘rhe pe?i?ioner t9 gasfe “he pho’mgmphs of The pe?i?ioner and his represen‘msives in ‘r‘ne agreemem which ‘ciear'iy‘ skews fhcn“ “rhe pe'H‘Honer submif‘red his accep‘mnce ‘i'o she adiafeiy communicm'ed f9 The pe‘l'h'ioner. ned 2-7-2009 of Anaexur-e-PM did no? essed his wii§§ngness Toexecu‘ie The wark Tender. is ‘rha’r ‘rhe respondenf CorporaTion vide 5—7-2009 caiied upon fhe pef3#ioner f0 days, in referehce “1:0 the {effer of ‘a'he F9. The pe‘H‘h‘cner immediafely expressed offer for destim?ion Dan‘rewada and of entering info agreemem‘ wi‘i’h #he scufiag ag reemen‘h 7‘he pefi‘rioner Thai- he had submiwed in 'ihe office af Distric‘? Manage? org/15' ~ v§de k§s memo da+ed 6% August 2009 cross offer o‘sfed 153—2909? a§ong wifh drcf? agreemem/ig ”rhe affice m? ¥Ik1an The District Manager. Wm 7._.: $1 200 mmvgigwku} ammm WWW W2 mm Wm %WW€¥T Tha respondan’r Corpgmfmn in trheir refum have mken a smnd ‘arhcd accagmnca of The crass offar dmed 15572200,? Vida Anneuxre-P/b' was never submi?‘red in ‘l'ha o‘ff'ice df The DisTric‘? Mmager, as wouicl be avidem from parugai of The docuikm’ i'rself and Thz pai‘i’ionar failad +0 execu‘i‘e agreemen‘r wifhin 3 days as dEreci'ed Vida Annexur'e-Wé. The cross offer was made To respondent N96. The pa?ifioner in coilusion wi? . junier' empinyeas of fhe office hcLs pu'r a smmp in she draf'r agreement b m. The draf‘!‘ agreemenf £5 nei‘mer signed by The peTH'ioner nor by The Disfric? Mamgar. If has bzeh wriffan oh a smmp papar procured or: 11-7— 2009 for fhe purhoses of agreem am, which éfseif shows fhcd occap‘mme’ of cross offar doma‘ 15-?—2Q09 QAnhexure-WES) and draff ograamehf of Annexure-P/8 are fabrica-red docuwenfs. ‘Shr’i Tiwar§, submiffad Thai? Though fhe €orpom‘l‘ion has entered im‘o ageamenf wi‘i’h respondenf No.6 for The work, howzver, he has no objgcfion if The “render proce s is cancelied wifh iibem’y +0 fhe Corporafion +6 initiafe fresh Tendér process for The aforesaid work. We have heard learned cou‘nsgi for The par‘ries. We have perused The documenTs filed by The eiTher iside. From The doou/men‘rs ’avnib‘ibie on record, iT Transpirzs That The ’"\\ T peTiTioner had refused cross offier daTed 30+h June, 2009 made on The a. . 1 ,. A T , s, ,m o, . wwegswmemwWmow mew X1-HC—78 mmmf‘vw ammm basis of ord‘er‘of Annexure-P/ by ‘3’he head office vide his !ef1‘er 0f " AnnexuneiPXf4~daried 2“ Juiy, 20 9. The pefifioner has oiso no? filed any v objecfio‘ni'for‘nof entering info greemenf as per memo, Anneuxre—P/é, ‘ oofecl i517-2009 even offer ac epfing The some on fine some dofe vide Anngxu re—P?’ 5. Affer cbsaly examining fh documem of Annexure-P/S, we are mo? ab§e To accep‘r The corxfenfion of The peTifioner firm? f‘ne peTiT§cner affer' agreeing To the proposni of cros offer had gubmih‘ed dmf‘r ogreemen‘f in <fhe office of tine Disfricf Moinoger and fhe some does no? inspire ”confioianca of The Court? in “(he ii hf of objection raised by '§'he respondem ‘ Corporm'ion in fhis regard However, taking info coqsioemfion fhe overa“ conduc? of The raspondan‘rs in nocepfing the offer of rasgondemf No.6, we oeem H” appropriafe fhm' fender process or fhe oforgsaid work shouid be quashed with Eber‘ry To fhe responden'? ,Corpomtion ‘ro commence fresh Tender process for The aforesaid work. G:rdered occordingiy. ‘ Tne pennon §s accordingly disposed of in fhe aforesaid ierms. r Sdl— ILN.CHANDRAKAR i _ Sd/- " / Dhirendra Mishra .Judge : Judge Bawe - ’ War‘wrvpxmwwmwm '