Hi'iBS.iiil s^, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. 2-33-IQF2001 IN THE MATTER OF : PETITIONER c:. ^ .^•? •>-:o5 .vd ::.-^ ATUL SINGH SON OF LATE SATNARAYAN SINGH AGED 37 YEARS A-4 CLASS CONTRACTOR RESIDENT OF BABUPARA JAIL ROAD, AMBIKAPUR. VERSUS RESPONDENTS l^THE STATE OF V" CHHATTISGARH, Through the Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh, Water Resources Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhavan, G.E.Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, Hasdeo Kachar, Water Resources Department, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). T2IE SUPERtNTENDING ENGINEER, Water Resources Division, Shyam Barnia Project Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh^. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, Water Resource Division, Surajpur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh). l—^f^ (3 5. SHRI LAL BABU SINGH, A-5 Category Contractor, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES '227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY. PROHIBITION ETC. ETC. AND/OR FOR ORDER (S) AND/OR DIRECTION (S) IN THE NATURE OF WRITS W^i5ff «?N1'<S ~5^ 1:sfPTi^R, eFtlRPTs, T;a"TTC?TIT b->,P,^Q, 2-33ll2-':'ot ar ?nn 'S i^"^n l"^ ^i^;-J! ^^"^ 1 .;?l"t.BSeia( 'TOfNft ^iftf Sifv". 'Spfe'fr^ TITtR'f li fS^ TiSR?R •^aflwa'n^l Shri B. P. Shanna, ^vocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Deep Kesharw^iu, Panel Lawyer, for fhe State on advance copy. By fbis petition under Article 226 aad 227 of fhe CoBstitution of India, the petitioner h^s challenged fhe acts of responden.t/ State 1 autborities declaring the t-espondent No.5 as successful bidder aad fhereaffer issuing work oijders, a copy. of which has been filed along wifh tbis petition as Anni^xure-P/11. The petitioner has prayed for directions fhat work oijder ia respect of NIT No.4 of 2000- 2001dtd.l6.02.2001 (Anijiexure-P/11) be quashed aud ftu-ther to declare fhe petitiouer as a|qualified tenderer and entitled for award of contract in respect of said|NIT. The petitioner has fttrther prayed for a direction fhat fh.e resporident/Sta.te aufhorities be restramed froiu ;iving further eflect to fhife work order given to the respondent No.5 under the said NIT aud furfher restrainiag respondent No.5 fromL cam'io.g out any work agapist the said work order. ' 1. Counsel for fhe pejtitioner subniits that such declaration is agaiust the eligibitity nojrms fixed by the State Govenuiient. He • further submits that |the petitioner has submitted vanous representatious, which |iave not been coasidered by fhe State 1 • ' aufhorities. He placed reliance upon fhe Order passed by Division Bench of fhis Court ia tbe case of Rani Sati. Granite Vs, State of Chhattisearh & Ofhers |u Writ Petition No.61/2000, decided on .s —23-TT:^OG1——--<——-„„.„ —..-^—.—-——„ <s'a;! ^ipTR;TTT, ~i?TTT:GTTs, Fsl^TRTq'i ;^!G==K^^ •S=^EH^,=^,?=£^; 1tiTO?Tr»*n% L)J^' -^o. ^-Z-S)\Z.'ci 1, \'?' wss :T:^T ^Hf^ -A •st"- -^ rWWij.-lalRSI i? STRft; 3ff^?l Haviag considered jfhe facts aad circuin.staaces of fhe case, luaterial on record aad dfter having heard leamed coiuisel for fhe parties, and in view of the| Order passed by the Division Bench of fhis Court in W.P.No.61/200(|(Supra), siace fhe questions sought to be raised iii fhis petition ca4 better be appreciated by the departniental authority, in the opuuonjof this Court it would be just aad proper that the petitioner to inal^e a re'presentatiou along with a copy of fh.e petition before the Enginq'er in Chief and if such a representation is filed, fhe sarue shall be cbnsidered and decided as early as possible preferably willliu one qionth fiuni the date of receipt of fhe representation. With these observAtions, the petition is disposed of at this stage. Certi&ed photocopyi ifappUed for. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge t.p/