^- Sudama Prasad Shukla A-5, Contractor, through its Proprietor, Sudama Prasad Shukla, S/o Shri Sharda Prasad Shukla, Aged about 53 years, Resident of Green Park Colony, Biiaspur (Chhattlsgarh) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Govt. of ChhatSisgarh, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Corporation, Bilaspur Through its Commissioner, Municipa! Corporation, Town Ha!l, Bilaspur 3. 4. Commissioner, IViunicipal Corporation, Bliaspur, Town HaH, iilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 5. Executive Engineer, Corporation, Town Hall, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) M/s Agrawal Construction Company, Through its Proprietor, Bashir Ahmed Complex, Shop No.13, Link Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) it Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of jndia int: Shri Sanjay K Agrawal with Shri Anand Shukia, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Praveen Das, Deputy Government Advocate for State / respondent No.1. Shri AS Kachhawaha, standing counsel for respondents No.2 to 4. •--"^-^E^R?=^£=saB 85 Shri Manoj Paranjape, with Shri VA Gowardhan, counsel for respondent No.5. >Sh The foliowing order of the Court was passed Heard learned counsei for the parties. 2) The petitioner, a registered A-5 contractor has filed this petition for the foliowing reiiefs : ^- "7.1. The petitioner above named most respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to cal! for the entire records teading to passing of the impugned award of work to fhe respondent no.5 for perusal of this Hon'bie Court. 7.2. The petitioner • above named most respectfully prays to thls Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate writ or direction for quashing the impugned resoluti'on dated 14.12.2006 (Annexure P/4) and the award of the work to the respondent no.5. 7.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to make a detailed enquiry into the award of fhe work to the respondent no.5 without tender process and further to make a detaiied enquiry for award of contract to respondent no.5 v;ithout process of law and State Government be further directed to punish departmentally against the erring officers and also to take other punitive action against the erring officers, 7.4 Any other rel'ief, which may be suitable in the racts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted aiong with cosf of thi's petition." 3) The petitioner, thus, in substance, is seeking an enquiry into the award ofwork to respondent No.S.by respondents No.2 to 4. The petitioner has allegedcommission ofcertain irreguiarities in the award ofthe sald contract by respondents No.2 to 4. 4) For ascertalning the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition against respondents No.2 to 4, a -.u ^Sht--^"' 'iUbbi 18 6 "Fact Flnding Enquiry" wouid be necessary. Such a "Fact Finding Enqulry" can be better oonducted by the 'Lok Aayog'. 5) tn thisview of the matter, we are of the opinion that It would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the 'Lok Aayog' for 2l of the grievances projected in the writ petition. 6) With the above observation, the writ petition stands Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sjnha Judge V- "^ ^ ^/- ^-^ -^ -S BK1