l& HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR DIVISiON BENGH CORAM: HON'BLESHroRAJEEVGUPW, GJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMWl SINHA. J. WRIT PETITION (Cl. No. 8404 of 2009. PETITIONER Santosh Shrivastava, S/o late R.K. Shrivastava, aged about 43 years, Occuf»tion - Civil Contractor, R/o Near Durga Mandir, Tellbandha, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS 1. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vtshvavidyalaya, Raipur, through it's Registrar. 2. The Superintendent, Physical Plant, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Raipur(C.G.). (Writ Petition under Article 226ofthe Constitution of India) RESPONDENTS: Present: Shri Raghavendra Verma, counsef for the petitloner ORDER (Q6th November,2009^ » The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J; Shri Raghavendra Verma, leamed counsel for the petitionerisheardonadmisston. 2) Petitioner - Santosh ShFivastava clalming himself to be a Class-111, Registered Civil Contractor has filed this writ petition for thefollowing reliefe: "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to quash the impugned notice inviting tender vdated 03.10.2009. 13 subbu 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may be Wnd enough to direct the respojndents to issue a fresh nodce inviting tender without imposing any reasonafcle conditlon wlth regard to earnest money. 10.3 Any other relief, whfoh thls Hon'bte Court may deem fit and proper tooking to the facts and circumstances of the case ateo be awarded to the petitioner Including the cost and expenses of thls petition." 3) The (»titioner,thus, Is seeking quashir^ of the Impugned notice invitingtender dated (^.10.2009 (Annexure-PQ}solelyon the ground that the respondents have acted illegally in dirwting deposit of about 2% of the value of ftie contract as egnnest money, as the practice prevaillng In PubllcWOri®Departmerttis to the effect that only .7%of the value of the contract is required to be deposited as earnest money. 4) Shri Raghavendra Verma, leamed counsel for the petitioner neither has filed any rules dong with the writ petttlon nor could demonstrate any such rule during the course of hearing prohibiting deposit of eamest money rnore than .7% of the value of the contract. 5) We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the notiee invWng tender dated 03.10.2009 (Annexure-P/2). 6) The writ petltion, therefore, fails arel Is hereby dismtesed summarily. __.^--— -- Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- SuniIKumar Sinha Judge x' {. llnill