E i WM” IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH , BILASPUR WPNegg L} OF 2933 ‘9' g PETITIONER ; TECHFAB SYSTEMS, A DIVISION OF TECHNQFAB ENGINEERING LTD. A Company Registered under the ; Companies Act, 1956, Having a. its Registered Oflice at 507, Eros Apartment, 56 Nehru Place, New Delhi-l 9. Factory at TECHNOFAB HOUSE, Plot No.5, Sector 27— C, Mathura Road, Fan'dabad- 121003 (Haryana). Versus pr RESPONDENTS “ 1. C.G. State Electricity Board, Through : Its Secretary, C.S.E.B. Head Quarter, Daganiya, Raipur (C.G.). Chief Engineer ( 0& M hen.) C.S.E.B., 58, Sunder Nagar, Raipur (CG-”)3 I TRANSWEIGII INDIA PVT. LTD. Having its Registered Ouice N0.603 Nippon-I, Juhutara Road, Juhu, Mumbai. . VVL‘I n L “a "—1 f ‘ CLE 22$ AND 227 OF TUTION OF INEIA FOR iaSUANCE a . UF A APruHRIATE “A UNDER w ‘ ‘ wnIT DETITIn nu vnnmr uma 1 1 W. v RI XI-HC-22 W W w P No .Z§‘Wk‘w°3 . ..................................... mm W 206 ..............................................m ................................................ mmmm WW WW $af—ivwm 0910112004 Shri Vivck Tankha, Sr. Advocate with Shri Prashant Misnma, Advocate for thc pctiti ‘ncr. Shri RS. Nair, Sr. Ad aw with ShriVinod Dcshmukh, counsel for tbs mspondent no. 1 d 2. Shri J.B. Chinai, Sr. dvocate with Shri P. Diwakar, Advocate and Shri Sanjay Jain, Advocam for mspondent no.3. At the out set, Mr. RS. Nair, Sr. Advocatz submitted that he is making statement at the Bar that so far no decision hm been taken by mspondents no. 1 and] 2 about awarciing of contract to any of the parties and if the petitioner makes a representation raising all his gn‘evanccs that will be considered by the respondent and anesh decision will be taken on the Whole issue including pro-qualincation and evaluation of fenders. Mr. Vivek Tankha. leaxned Sr. Advocate for the pemioner has agreed to this proposal and submitted that the pen‘tioner may be allowed to make a xepresentation raising all his grievances and respondents may be directed to take ahesh decision after considering all the points \ .N A u W m mm m Wmmm ~ 07'" 4 raised by the petih'oner in reasoned order regaxding the 1 mw fgé}m amwm an objective manner and with a ore—qualincation and evaluation. In View of the above submissions made by leaned counsel disposed of with the following order that the petitioner is allowedl to make a detailed mpresentation for the parties, the petition is within 15 days raising all hi1; grievances to the mspondents no. 1 and 2 with a copy of the same to mspondent no.3 and if the mspondent no.3 wants to me he will be enn'tled to make a mply/tepresentation. After considexing the representau‘oh] reply, xespondents no. 1 and 2 will take a decision anesh on qualification and evaluation and if mspondents no. 1 and 2 want to seek any clm‘ifiraiion or assistance, they can do so by no.3 and hnal decision taker. communicated to the parties ilnmedia&1y. Advocate submits that after dnal afresh decision taken, if the permitted to hle the petition ‘ / a mply/Iepxesentation of the same, the Whole issue including pre- rcgaxdjng the awarding of oonttact Mr. Vivek Tankha, Sr‘, calling the petitioner and respondent by respondents no. 1 and 2 will be etitioner feels aggrieved, he may be/ accordance with law. /VA/I T‘ of respondents no. 1 and 2. §1e peu't'on against the decision With the above observatic , stands disposed of. Parties are entitled for cel 11‘tied copy of this order. Both the parties, if they Sd/— L.c.BHADOO g Judge ' are so advised, will be at libexty to ms and dixeetions, this writ pet’m'on