w:i b ^ a'^' S ^f- l-u~6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P.rCINo. tf^/20Q7 PETITIONER ^..•^^. JBt <?(>",..' ^y^ ^7i^Sr:^ ^"^'y.>'' ...••":.v^>" D.K. STEEL INDUSTRIES Through its Propritor Dinesh Kumar Saraf S/o Shri PrabhuDayal Saraf Aged about 43 Yrs. R/o D.K. Steel Industries, Seepat Road, Jora Talab Bandhwapara, New Sarkanda Bilaspur, Distt - Bilaspur [C.G.] VERSUS 1. State ofChhattisgarh, through Secretary, Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit JAti Vikas Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur [C.G.] 2. Commissioner, Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas, Pt Ravi Shankar Shukla University Campus, Raipur [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT, WRITS, ORDER, DIRECTIONS ETC. '^ j- u' 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPuR DB : HON'BLE SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHRTVASTAVA AND HON-BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MSHRA, JJ Petitioner Versus Respondents W.P.fC)No.6SOF2007 D.K. Steel Industries State ofChhattisgarh and bthers Present: Shri Maneesh Shaniia, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Suniesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (15-1-2007) The order ofthe Court was passed by Vijay Kiuiiar Shrivastava, J:- 2. Respondents vide advertisement dated 28-11-2006 floated tender notice calling bids for SaloonBox withBelt and Saloon Kit Eleven bidders came fonvard. Out of 11, 10 could not qualify the technica! specifications, therefore, their bids were rejected at the threshold. Only the petitioner remamed qualified but his bid was not opened and instead a fresh notice mviting tenders was floated by advertisement dated 28-12-2006. 3. Petitioner's contention is ihat fhough he alone remained in the nm yet rate offered by hrm was not opened and instead of openmg his bids, another tender by impliedly cancelling the earlier tender notice have been issued. Therefore, he is in all faimess entitled for getting opened his bids. On the other hand, leamed coimsel for the respondents contended that tender notice itself contains a condition that rights to reject have been kept reserved by the Commissioner, Adiin Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas Department, Raipur, therefore, when there remained no open competition, it became necessaty for the State to call for a fresh tender. 3. Petitioner's right to participate in fresh tender process has not been taken away and apparently when the aim of calling the tender failed because of technical specification, it was in all faimess to call for a fresh tender so fiiat competitors msy not be deprived of from taking part. m open coinpetition and fheir right may not be infringed. That aparfc, as per tender notice itself, it was weli within fhe jurisdiction of the State to accept or reject any tender fumished by any ofthe competitors. 4. In fhe result, we do not find any substance in the petition, tfaerefore, the petition is liabie to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 5. Consequently, M.W.P. No. 1 07/2007 and I.A. No. 358/2007 stand disposed of. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge