Petitionsi HIQHCOURT OFCHHATT!SGARH:B!LASPUR~ Writ Petition No. 47S9 of 2004 fyiahendra Singh Khanuja, s/o. Late Shri Surjeet Singh Khanuja, aged 42 years, r/o. Kawardha, District Kabir Dham (CG). Versus 1 State of ChhaStisgarh throagh Secretary, Departmsnt of ^riculture, D.K.S. Bhawan, Respondents 2. Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Board, Raipur through its lyianaging Dlrsctor, Raipur (CG). '' 3. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Board, Raipur (CG). 4. Knshi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kawardha fcrough Its Secretary, Kawardha, Distrlct Kabir Dham 5. Nagesh Shukia & Bros. through Shri Nagesh Shukla, Contractor of Covsred Auction Piatform, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiiti, Kawardha, District KabirDham. ( 6. Shri Aroind Chauhan, Contract of Open Auction Piatform, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kawardha, District Kabir Dham. 7. Shri Zuber Ahmed Siddiqui, Contractor of Check Post & Drainage in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kawardha, District KabirDham. 8. Rajesh Kumar Makhijani, Contraetor of Borewelis, Krlshi Upaj Mandl Samiti, Kawardha, District Kabir Dham. (Writ Petition under Article 2261227 of Constitution of india) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. Rajeey Shrivastava, counse! for the petitioner. Mr.Bhaskar Payasi, Pane! Lawyer for the Stats. iVIr. Ashish Shrivastava, counset forthe respondent No.5,6, 7&8. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 4th day of February, 2009) The pelitioner, being Vice President of Krishi Upsj Mandi Samiti, Kawardha, District Kabir Dham.questions the legaiity and vaiidity ofthe award of B. contraci 10 the resDontienis No.5, 'o. i and S as oer leiter dated 3-11-2004 (Annexure P;'1). 2) The racts, in oner, are that a tendsr was irivjted m Knsfii (JDaj ivlandi, Kavifardha. Dist. KabiFciham. tor consii'uction of covered auc'tion Diatrorrn, boundarv-cum-vifire mesn fencing, ooen auc'tion piatform ana check-oost & drainaae within the iViandi Di'emises at viliaae taipur. Accordina 10 learned counsei appearsng for the petitioner, Sub Divisional Officer made a caucus wfth the responcients No.S, 6, and 7' causina financial ioss to the Mandi. 'I'he tenders vvere submitted aiving their offer at verv hiah rate and for wnich under the mutus aareement, the tenders Vifers submitted tor 15 to 20% more tnan 50R (schedule a- of rates'). Pursuant to the tender, hiahest bidder was seiected. His auction. thereafter, was confirmed. Ihe work assianed to the hiynest biutier was complsted. 3) Per contra. snri Asi'iish Shnysstava. iearned counsei appeannq lor the respondents No.S. 6. 7 anci 8 wouid submit tf'iat the petitioner himselt Presi it of the Krish! UDaj Mandi Samiti and he was aware of the decision and tne rates offered bv the contractors. Being a part to th< decis'ion makina, the petitioner is restrained to challenge the same. The rates 17 to 24% above SOR Is the comiTion practice. In ait departments, rates are raised upto 30 percant above SOK. On tne inere ground rates were more than SOR. the decision cannot be heid as viti neia as vriiaiea. in petitioner is seekina a rovina enquiry in the mattei'. 4) i have heard iearned counsei for the partfes, perused the pleadings and documents apDended thereto. After award of the contract. the work has been cor'npleted. The petitioner was a ps.it of decision maKing. The oetitioner did not oppose the contraot amount. • Novr bv this petition. the Detitioner seeks to rovina enautrv. which cannot be done bv tne Hiah 3,- Court. On the materials avaliabte, it cannot be held that there was any irregularity or iliegality in awarding the contract to the highest bidder. 5) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no merit in the case. Accordingiy,the petltion is dismissed. g^ ~ Saju