C@ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATT!SGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, & HON’BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ Writ Petition (T) No. 113 of 2011 Present: Shri Shashank Thakur, counsel for the appellant. Shri AS Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State. oRAL ORDER (12m January, 201 1) Per Dhirendra Mishra .l reliefs: The petitioner has med the instant petition and prayed for the following (i) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ or writs thereby commanding the respondent authorities to produce the entire records refating to the case of petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon ’ble Court. (it) This Hon’ble Court may kind/y be pleased to set aside the undated order bean‘ng Endorsement No, amen/4 martian/207a View? We” ........... (Annexure P/3) and further be pleased to decfare the agreement executed by the respondent No.5 with the State Government for collection of the toll-tax as null & void (Annexure- P/4). Petitioners Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri Sakhi Chand Prasad Gupta, aged about 36 years, R/o Village Amandon, PO-Pratappur, District—Sarguja (CG) Versus Respondents 1‘ The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Public Works Department, DKS Bhawan. Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) 2. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Depaltment, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur (CG) 3. The Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG) 4, The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division No1, Ambikapur (CG) 5. Om Prakash Jaisawal, S/o Shri Banshlal Jaisawal, age non-known to the petitioner, Occupation —- Contractor, R/o Balodabazar, District —— Raipur (CG) JI‘ Mé (iii) This Hon ’b/e Ccurf may kindly be pleased to direct {he responaent Sfafe aufhorities f0 open the price bid of the petitioner and the Hon’bie Courf may further be pleased to direct the Siate Govemment fo conduct a free & fair inquiry in the matter. (MAny ether relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case inciuding award of the cost of the petition may be given.“ 2. Shri shaehank Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in response to the tender notice dated 18‘” January, 2010 (Annexure P/2), the petitioner participated in the tender process for the work of collection of toil tax on Rhuljhar Mahan Banki Pool. Ambikapur—Pratappur roan. The petitioner submitted duly filled in tender form along with all the necessary documents related to the earnest money, Term Deposit Receipt and Solvency Certificate as per terms and conditions of the tender notice in the first envelope. He quoted his price bid in the second envelope. The tenders were opened as per schedule on 30‘” January, 2010 and the work was awarded to respondent No.5, whose highest bid for the tender was Rs.13,45,678/—, whereas the rate quoted by the petitioner was much higher than the rate quoted by respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 was authorized to collect toll tax vide Annexure P/p. and an agreement of Annexure PM for the said work was entered into between respondent No.5 and the State. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 4.2.2010 (Annexure P/S), supported by his own affidavit. against the award of work to respondent No.5, The Chief Engineer. PWD, Biiaspur, vide his letter dated 4.3.2010 (Annexure P/7) addressed to the Superintending Engineer. requested to open the price bid of the petitioner in the government interest. However. his price bid was not opened. Finaily. on petitioner‘s application under the Right to Information Act. the Executive Engineer vide his Memo dated 17/6/2010 (Annexure P/Q) informed the petitioner that his second envelope containing price bid was not opened as he was not found eiigible to participate in the tender process. The petitioner had only submitted TDRs against security deposit and earnest money and his first envelope did not contain Revenue’s Solvency Certihcate, 3. Shri Thakur vehemently argued that the petitioner had submitted all the documents in the first envelope as per requirements of the tender notice, including Revenue’s Solvency Certificate, and the respondent authoritiesx with a View to favour respondent No.5, deiiberateiy did not consider the petitioner’s price bid on the false pretext that he did not submit the Revenue‘s Solvency Certincatei 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. lndisputably, the tenders were opened on 30m January, 2010. From perusal of the document of Annexure P/Q, it is clear that the Revenue’s Solvency Certificate was not found in the first envelope submitted by the petitioner, whereas the tender notice of Annexure P/2 stipulates that the participants have to submit valid Revenue‘s Solvency Certificate in the name of the participants for 75% value of the contract work. From perusal of the document of Annexure P/5, we find that the petitioner submitted his representation‘onty on 4‘“ February, 2010 against the award of work to respondent No.5 and non-Opening of his price bid. The petitioner was not present on the date of opening of bids. Thus, keeping in View the above undisputed facts and also considering the reasons assigned by the Executive Engineer for not opening the petitioner’s tender form in his Memo dated 17.6.2010 (Annexure Pfg). we are of the opinion that the factual dispute raised by the petitioner in the instant petition cannot be decided in writ proceedings and accordingly, we dismiss this petition in limine, reserving liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to suitable legal remedy for the 9W in thispetition. Dhirendra Mishra i Judge Sd/- i sm- i Rangnath Chandrakar Judge l