•5'In—?'l.~»'fn>S (J'0—)<5-Z IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASFUR (C.G.l Writ Petition (C) N0. /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS .^^^y^ ^•^yx^ *,1 ...'^ A ^y^ •<-'A" / Hitesh Mehta, S/o Dhiru Dhraj Mehta, aged about, 30 years, Pyarelal, Ft/o Mian Road Keshkal, District Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretaiy, Department of Urban Adininistration 85 Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Keshkal, Distorict Bastar (C.G.) WRrrPETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^, '\^ '0\- COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR Dlvtsion Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ Writ Petition.fc) No. 2053 of 2011 Petitione.r Afc 2. Hitesh Mehta S/o Dhiru Dhr-aj Mehta, aged about 30 years, Pyarelal, R/o Mtan Road Keshkal, District Kanker (CG) ;f--3fa i^f r^hhaff-isi L^IS Ui ^/lifislLl^ystlfl, Through Secretary, Department of Urban Admlnistration . & Deveiopment, DKS Bhawan, Manfralaya, Raipur (CG) Chief Municipa! Officer, Nagar Panchayat, KsshkaS, District Bastar —^- }-rese"t Smt. Renu Kochar, counse! for the petitioner. Shri AS Kachhawaha, Dy, Advocate Genera! for the State. ni (Passed on 18th Aprii, 2011) P^r Dhif^ndm Mlshrs. J By this petitton, the petitioner has impugned the resoiution dated 13 January, 2011 adopted in specia! meeting of Nagar Panchayat, Keshka!, whereby Nagar Panchayat has cancefled its eariier resoiution dated 29.11.2010 and directed the Chief Municipal Officer to invite fresh tenders for purchase of eSectricai appiiances. 2. Smt. Renu Kochar, iea.rned counse! for the petitioner submits that the Counci! vide its resotution 29.11.2010 had approved the proposai of the Executive Engineer, v/hereby he had recommended to accept fhe tender of the petifioner for purchase of electrica! appliances for the Council. However, the aforesaid resolution has been cancelled wthin less than 3 months of its adoption, without following the procedure prescribed in Section 65 of the C-hhattisaarh Municlpaiities Act, 1961 (in short "the Act, 1961"). After cancelina fhe resoiution, the Counci! has invited fresh tenders vide niw -«&,. !i!,,...isS3fe, '?.'-;s?i:l-s.'-'"'''^i 2. ^y tendsr notlce datsd 18 March, 2011 (Annexure P/5). The subsequent resoiution being contrary to the statutory provisions prescribed under Section 55 of the Acf, 1961 , is iitega! and therefore, inviting fresh tender for the work, for which the Counci! had already resolved to approve the offer of the petitioner, is aiso iltega! and deservesto be set aside. 3. Heard jearned counsel for ths petitioner and perused the impugned note sheet. 4. Frorn perusai of the resoiution dated 13 January, 2011, it is found that the matter was placed before the Council at the request of President, vice President and 10 members of the Council for re-consideration of resolution dated 29.11.2010 and the same has been unanimousiy adopted by the Councii. Canceling the earlier resolution dated 29.11.2010, it has seen further decided to invite fresh tenders as eariier rate accepted by the Council was considered to be on higher side. From perusa! ofthe resoiution, we find that the same has been carried out after substantially following She provisions of Section 65 of the Act, 1961. Since the Council has decided to re-tender and it is open to the petitioner to participate in the re-tender process, no interference is called for in the rnatter. There is no substance in this petition, the same deserves to be and is, accordingiy, dismissed at the admission its®'f. Sd/- Sd7- •N. Chandrakar y^.