.-^"(yVS^.v^^-^.-^^^i^&^i.'i^-^^^^^^^^1" Petittoaer* REsPG EIB'S. ffi^®_HI6HCOBB3'®E'CIiHjKISS^Hi ^E BS..ASBBR. ,.'2^ l8.IE se.SSZoi Vlrenira KWsf siBgh son o£ i^fce Kaiifca Prasal siiagfc1 A-*. ca*egery CoHtraptor^BesMeiafc o£ Deviganj ygird- Aib.i.kapia'* Dis'tts- iaFg8ia.(Ghh*). I £S ^ 1 ^ l). Ite gtate of ebfaa't't'isgarb, Starough "the secretaFy nater- Ees&Brcss Be.P*• Ba& Ka^aB-. Bbawaa ©.£• Bosa* Batpar (Cto.) 2>. Tbe cfatef Engiteer, Ba^So KaCfaeiCt.waEfce'" Resaorees-Begt ^'~r!-sv \6 V^'' J •BiIaagw'Xeto. ) * t* --^ ' . ' '• . ' 4^^ _. _. _..._^._^^- ^.'^^...••' 5). Ihe swerinfcendl.ng EBgJLBeer, ^.^^ •WSter ResowcesBji;vlsM>u,$feyaEl- ^'A'^^. Bgpnla Fro3ect,®tvtsiO&-Att3ikapBr, ^'w(^ Disfcrle'b- SsC'gcga (CXh.). ^,, " »^ • . ~T -, .^ .. ~^ ^^ ". • . •• • ^-• •- 4). Tlae Exeeutive EBgiBeer, ^Eifeer ResoaTc®sJDlw l.^ioa, swaSPW* Di^ts saFg'a3a (Chh., /•^/. l«^« 5). gbri La3- Babu sl-ngla ~_A-5 Category Coatrastor, Ksaarpiz-- ipbi£apir»Bi-stts s®'g»3a(Gtila.). 6)^ M/s. Stei. aaRi sati eraaite^Ge. EbaF Sia'adwaPa,- BaB&I^raS^t'fa> Dls'trt's K©rea(Chh,). W.1S PEIS'IOM ^Wm ZSaS 2^/22'lffS IHE CON^C3S®B3N®EI IA ?£»I^BAKfi @E W1S&SV ^ SBEtSE&ISS 'SSW&J.SKEK.^KKSs^SSSSS.MI SIC. Gotrt>d . ... .2 a •--SS3T-HC-22 sn^r^ feiwans?! %nN;:8f%g tat;°tiaac 's^ 'w'ilSvm;y^\w ,'hwvjf :is M,.P...SS~1.. •^ 2WI *<• 3T!t^'?I<nW.tl{5iT ^MWrt •WR?ff-3 fS^tfiRZrc ^i'aiiign sn^l 23.11.2001: ShriSHHilSinhalearnedco^nselforthepetitioner. Shri Stmbir Singh leamed<fAforrespon<knts 1 to 4. Shri Prwshant Mishra.Jeiim^d counselforrsspondeist no. 5, Shri Y.KMttHshileamedc^uriselwith ShriRf.Shwynafor respondentno.6. Beard. Shri Sinha,lettrned co»nset[for the petitioher subimSs that the matter relates to contract in ^elafion to constructian work of left andrightflank of Parashurw^ur. P^itionerfitrthercanteitSs that the condMoitwi. 3.19 inyios&Sis nail vaKSand is against fhe pidiUcpolicy andtdsoa^itnstthe^glits andinterestoftheStaie. tt 'isfwrther submitted by thep^Uioi^er that ifthe said conditionswe allowed to exist,it shall cause u^ustice and there would not be proper conyetttwn. | Bawever,counsei fbr the iimpondeiUs subimtted that the p^itioner Uself has subnatted tU^ tender and did not raise any objection at the fime of subnas^wn of the same. It is further subimttedthat such condstion kas 'peen/ulfdledly tkerespondents 5 and 6 and the same is warrant^dfor suitability. XI-HC-22 snt?t^T ?:ira'3'i5?I ^qT^'Hf^T sai ^ i -All'4i?)4,(5iilwi6, Rwi'ay "g^ 200 fq^y' sii^i Wiwafei It has been fttrfher pointed^ of the tender are concerned, authorities of the State and are\ which have been fidfilledby the that appliccutt pa.rticipated and t" . petition has beenfdedafter due s ^MWfli. ifftRff -q fiist '.pilWK q7 STHTq •3T[t?T ouf that sofarasthe conditions they have been. nwde by the the job requwemenls. It vs dlso submitted that respondents '5 and\6 havefulfiUedthose conditions. Itis also contendedthatthepetiti^ner is estoppedfromchallenging the conditions after parttcipating^n the tender. Thus having considered thft rival contentions of both the parties and after perusing the ^utterial avmlable on record (is^ r<i»(ffvs^?' noticed in the preceding paragrSfphs as the condUions arffSu.ch ]fesppndents 5 and 6 saidfwther \submitted the tender and this r' ^ ^~^~' ' "^^" ' " -: ^rvtiny already made, no casefor interference under Ardetes 226/^27 of dieConstttwtion of India hasbeen madeout Consequ.ently, thepetvtionf^als andis accordingty disndssed. C^erttfiedphotocopy. ' Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge