/' WnWOft QSQCfi 1 (f^r ^f^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAATTISGARH, AT BILASPUR W.P. (Cl N0 ^U -^\ 12010 WR1T PETITION UNDERARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER RESPONDENTS .\>&>. '^ ^4<v'^ ^' ^\.^ ^^y^ fl W /N^.-'A^;-^ ..••" -(" ,\°A« o > •^&w y/^y' .^.^ ! ""--: : / Ramcharan Agarwal, S/o. Late Bhagwandas Agarwal, aged about 49 years, R/o. Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) Versus <!} Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., through its Managing Director, Bal Ashram Parisar, Kachahri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) :2) The District Manager, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd, Raigarh (C.G.) /'' /":3) Anup Singh Syal, S/o. not known, Transport Contractor, iaigarh (C.G.) WKIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT /WRITS / ^RDER / ORDERS , DIRECTION / DIRECTIONS ETC. 1 i ^ ii»«Niiiiiit,ii».a•1fi ^.sV9s<t alii^W:^-j,ewit9» :mtMfii»^,^fsw^iite^sf^iis^vhsM^ »a^»9»»t IttnKtA .&»|se, |laaa»KB" HI6H COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPW DIVISION BENCH: Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Nawal Kishore Aaarwal. JJ. W.P.[cl No.3421/2010 (Writ Petition under Articie 226/227 of Constitution of India) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Vs Ramcharan Agarwal Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Raipur & others Present: Mr. K.A. Anasari. Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.L. Bajpayee, Advocate Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Advocate Mr. M.N. Prasad, &eneral Manager & Mr. R.B. Shukta, District Manager, Rai9arh are a!so prssent in psrson. ttr. S.V.K.Rao, Advocate For the petitioner. For respondent No.l & 2, For respondent No.3 O R 0 E R fOral) (Passed on 13th Jonuary. 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finaily at The admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner, who is a transport contractor, has fiied this writ petitionseeking following retiefs: "l.That, the Hon'bte Court be pleased to cali for the entire records in connection with the award of the contract from the respondent No.l and 2 for The kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 2. That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash The impugned letter/order/approval of the contract to the respondent No.3 dated 3.07.2010 (Annexure P-5). 3. That, the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to direct the respondent No.l to award the contract of Transport^jif _ • .fS^^L: f"'^"•^1, ^, 6 Ites:- ? ^!SSa5Sy Paqe 2 of 4 food grains to the petitioner, his rates being the lowest amongst the four tenderers and also being less than the rates that were sanctioned last year. 4. That, such other reiief/s as may be deemed fit, in the facts and circumstances of the co.se, be also granted in favour of the petjtioner." 3. &rievance of the petitioner is that on 05.03.2010 respondent No.l had issued a tender notice inviting applications from the eligible contractors for the work of loading-unloading and transport of food grains and sugar from Raiiway Rack Point, Raigorh to the go- down of the respondent-Corporation. Pursuant to said notice inviting Tender, various contractors, including the petitioner herein had submitted their bids. In the said tender process, though the petitioner's bid was found to be lowest one but the respondent auThorities have directed the respondent No.3 herein to get the agreement executed for the said work. 4. Looking to the nature of dispute involved in the present case, on 30.11.2010 this Court has directed the learned counsel for respondents No.l & 2 to produce the oriqjnal records and in comoliance of which, todav onainal records have been produced by learned counsel for respondents No.l & 2. i. We have heard learned counsel for the par-ties. We have aiso perused the records produced by the respondents No.l & 2. 6. On perusai of records, it is noticed that the tender notice issued earlier i.e. on 5.3.2010. for the same work was cancelled bv the respondent No.l vide order dated 12.4.2010 and thereafter, on 31.5.2010 fresh tender notice was issued by the respondent Corporation for the same work. Last date for obtnining the appiication form for thesaid tender work from the concerned bistrict Office of the respondent No.l was 9.6.2010 and the last date for submission of the application form was 10.6.2010. For the purpose of fresh tender notice, the respondent No.l Paqe 3 of 4 authorities have reiied upon the conditions of earlier tender notice and one of the Tender conditions was that the technic'al bid will be opened first and thereafter only the financial bid wil be opened. In response to the said tender notice, the petitioner submitted his tender papers oiongwith the old apptication form downloaded by him from the website of the respondent Corporation. After completion of tender Drocess, the technical bid of the petitjoner was opened by the CommitTee constituted in this reqard, which was found in order, and therefore. the financial bjd of the petiTioner was opened and the petitioner's bid was deciared as towest one. However, after openinq his financial bid and declarinq him successful, his tender form was rejected by the respondent N0.1 vide order dated 24.7.2010 (Annexure R-8) on the ground that the'application form submitted by the petitioner was downloaded from the website of the respondent and the same relates to the tender notice issued earlier and cancelled vide order dated 12.4.2010 and thus, the form submitTed by the petitioner is not t'he actudl application form published for the tender in question, as the petitioner did not purchase the form from The office, and therefore, proposai of the petitioner is rejected. But, we fail To understand that after openinq of The technical bid and thereafter financial bid of the petitioner and thereafter declaring him as lowest one as To why the respondent auThorities hcve rejected the application form of the petitioner, more so when the conditions of earlier 1-ender, which was rejected by the respondent No.l, have been relied upon by the respondent for the tender in guestion. A-t this staqe, on the instrucTions of the officers of The respondent Corporation, present in the Court,learned counsel for The respondents No.l & 2 has conceded ThaT there was mistake n^ -^'•:^, Paqe 4 of 4 the part of the officers of the respondent Corporation To the effect that tender of the petitioner was rejected after opening of his technical bid and financial bid and declarinei his bid to be lowest one and thereafter negotiations were made with other contractor on the rate which was offered bv the Dstitioner and therefore, the respondent Corporation is ready to invite fresh tenders as the Corporation is not interested in any particular contractor. He has further assured the Court that fresh tender process will be compteted within a period of one month and in the meantime the department shall carry out the transportation work throuqh its own sources. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the oetitioner has no objection if the petition is disposed of in the above terms. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the respondents No.l & 2, we dispose of this writ petition wjth a direction to the respondents No.l & 2 to issue fresh notice inviting tender for the work in question without any further delay so that the fresh tender process may be completed within a period ofone month from today. Needless to mention here that atleast fifteen days time shall be granted to the prospective participants so that they may be able to get sufficient time to fulfill the conditions mentioned in the tender notice. The Tender form with other conditions shdti be published / uploaded in the website of the respondent Corporation also. Subject To above observations & direction, the writ Detition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 11. Certified copy as psr rules. riCin/- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge