BILASPUR (‘3’ ( Rtitiomr TN V WP. Na (€75 :2001 C2) z)? W5 M/s N. CNahar, Approved Govemment, Semi Govt. Contractorihough ': N.C.Nahar Sfo Late Shri C.L.Nahar, aged about 65 yeam, Proprietor ofthe firm, R/o Malviya Nagar, Durg, Dist : Dutg L- (C.G.) S€ate ofChhattisgarh Through : Secretary Water Resource Development, D.K‘ Bhawan, Raipur ~ (C.G.) Engineer in Chief, Water Resource Development, Raipur -— (C. G.) WRIT ChiefEngineer, Mahanadi Godavari Basin 1 Raipur— (ca) ’ Executive Engineer, Mohdipazt Project, Division : Burg. Diet : Durg — (C. G.) W w. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA e #¥_ .._ *W ._L. a , WW W 5hr! SanJuy S Agrawctl 5 r respondenig By fhls yum pe‘fmon under A 1'Icle 226/227 of fhe Conshfu'h Endla fhe penfloner seeks 1‘0 chalenge The action spondenf No ' 3§ 9 2004 5hr! P Diwaker' Advoca‘l'e wrHI Kum Pra‘rha Ghoshal counseifor ‘i'h pe‘rmoner emmen‘r Advoca‘l‘e for The Sm‘re/ '» '* on ‘ o V, e 2 ‘wheveby fhe Tender dccumen‘!’ or Th‘ pe‘hfioner has been rejecfed The pe‘h‘honers pe‘h‘hon 1s a‘r he is an approved Governmen‘t :com’mcfor reglsfer‘ed as A V C Con‘rmcfor of Wcfer Resources Deparfmem and fhe regas‘rrauon cerhftca're is Annexure A—1 The ' ' pe'h‘i'loners firm has successfu he ‘ Covernmen‘r work from fhe aualn‘ned com-radars for which The pefmoner ~ nad apphed The ra‘res quo‘red by Th pe‘m‘loner s firm were fhe iowes'r buf L r : V‘rhe work has no‘r been ass:gned on Th ground fhaf fhe pe‘rmoner during fhe . las‘r fwe years has no? done fhe Gov> rnmem‘ work as during The pasT five v T years no work ,as ass ned by The G vernmenT To The c TracTors b v ' *T T L he fmanual posmon of" he Governm" nT was no sTaTemenTs When The GovernmenT 1Tse!f hadno'r mwTed The Tenders .yas‘ five years Then how con They I, y down a condITIon for co fhove The smd experience for The p V GovernmenT do noT say ThqT o conT acTor should have xperlence of fl ve 5 e - ‘ 0 ‘h r l s 5 complefed various works cf fhe if ’ :Governmen‘r The respondents h ve mvrred secded “renders for ‘ ‘ ll _ _ 2/} 1 ‘ 2' ' e ‘ m ‘ nT ,2 o year‘s wi‘rh fhe Governmen‘r wowk.‘ The annexe‘d documéri‘l‘ Annea‘ure A 5 makes if very clear :rhaf’fhe pem' one!“ Is one of The mos'r experienced confrocfor‘s of fhe S‘m‘re of Chhaf1xsgm~h The responden‘rs are 90mg To i open The Tenders on 14 9 2001 for Judging pre—quahflca‘rion and There‘is ‘ every hkeiihood Tha‘l’ *he pe‘hfloner IH be disquafified if The lowes‘r mfes } of The pefmoner areznof considered Then the work would be gxven 1'0 some ofher persons who are fhe choxce of he respondenfs _ Return has been fuied on beha f of fhe 5*aTe/responden‘rs m which 1T has been men‘honed Thm‘ The Govern en? m order 1'0 s‘rreamlme The process of Tendering, fhe Sfafe Governme f had amended fhe procedures ior nvrmhon of fender-s so e of Tender arms and fhe procedure for recelvmg ' and opening of ‘i'he i‘ender docu enfs by ifs order do‘red 27 4 2001 ‘ (Annexure R 1) and according 1'0 fho The conTmcTors would be reqUired To submiT Three enveiopes for The es maTed cosT of work exceeding Rs 60 Iakhs These envelopes shouid be m rked as A B and C Envelope A shaTl e conTain The cerTificaTe of regisTraTT n income Tax ceriificaTe and earnesT money Envelope B shall conTain The documenTs regarding pre-qualificaTton of The concerned conTracTor» Envelo e C shall conTain The final bid If The l ‘ concerned conTracTor is noT ‘ound q alified upon opening of envelope B on l evaluoTion of The documenTs envelo e C would noT be opened Along WiTh ' i The Tender documenT all The conTrocT rs were supplied WiTh a copy of leTTer daTed 30 4 2001 which also conTains such insTrucTions Ln response To The T noTice inviTing Tender, eighT conTracT rs submiTTed Their Tender documen a, Ts iik‘.i1 o 'o"1'hé De‘p‘arfkmenf Whic’h’were ened by the Chief Engineer as pr‘ . adecuded on 7 9 2061 in respec‘r of M/s Bafna Ear‘rh Movers Llmrred bur-9,; \V : ' I _ envelope 8 which confams pre quahf cafmn was no‘f found and m respecf o . Tne presenf pefl‘honer as The pe :envekape B Thaf fhe same alsa c Mums The fmancm} bid documenf 'enyeiope B“ was not opened The pef ‘honer was disqualified because he had ‘ nof submi‘Hed The financml bid document’s in a separafe envelope Copy of _ ; , "rhe le‘H‘er of Chief Engineer is Axure R 3 Therefore The peTiTionr, f oner- had himself wrl‘H'en a noe on s . r, {deserves To ‘b ismissed d I have heard learned counsel llor The parTies and perused The record As per The record and procedure The peTiTioner was remred T ‘ submiT Three envelopes as menTionei above InsTead of submiTTing Three ¥envelopes separaTely, The peTiTioner menTioned on envelope B i e for pre— qualificoTion ThaT financml bid also i ; in envelope B ”’he: Tore as per The - r Terms and condiTions of The Tender The same was noT opened and iT was , is reJecTed on ThaT ground As The peTiTioner had noT complied WiTh The Terms [and condiTions of The N I T Therefc re his N I T was righTly reJecTed a I do noT find any illegaliTy or irregulasiTy in The deCision of The respondenTs In The CircumsTances The pe iTion is liable To be dismissed and The» i same is accordingly, dismissed si dpo l, l , Consequemiy, I A No 3413/2031 s'mids s osa L C BHADOO Judge ) a— _ I h h f e nle v q or, nd. l l ! L V '