mm 'rwkg i BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. /,, W.P.NO.- PETITIONER RESPONDENTS through : Q (32 h). / 2003 Satag‘sh Kumar Agrawal, Son of Shrl evraj Agrawal, aged about 35 years, occupation Transport Operator, Resident of Main Road Surajpur, ‘ 71% Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG) / VERSUS {pr of State Chhattisgarh, Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. President, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Director, Civil Ltd, (3. Managing ‘ Chhattisgarh State Supplies Corporation Raipur. r’District Manager, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) . ”district Management, Chhattisgarh ivil Supply Corporation Limited, Ambi';;apur, Distt. Surguja (CG) < W @ C 6. District collector Surguja Ambikapur (Chhattisgarh) /’” / PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT ORDER OR AND DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI OR OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE NATURE. , M HIGH COgRT OF ¢H_HATTISGARg_ AT BILA_$PUR Wr’rl' Pcti‘rion No,2661 0f 2003 swish Kumnr Agmwal Versus Stafe of Chhafrisgarh and others POST FOR ORDEI: ON 4’” Not/Mam, 2003 Sd/. L.C.BHADoo i Judge 03.11.2003 ) gl$H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILA$PUR (j WM 2003 Swish Kumar Agmwal Versus Sfafe of Chhamsgarh and o'H-ners Presen-r: - Mrs. Hamida Siddque, Advocate: Mr. Ranbir Singh Mar-has, Govt Advoaa‘re: For fhe Shfe/respondenfs 1 & 6 Mr. Pmshnn‘r Mishra, Advoea're: For respondents 2 1'0 5 For ‘rhe pefifioner Moro: Horny: Shri Jusfico LC, 3hndoo ORDER (Passed on 57' ‘HW November, 2003) 1. By 'l‘his wrif pefi‘rion under Ar‘ricle 226 of fhe Consfi'tufion of India, fhe pefifioner has chalknged 1he process of selection of a confracfor for fmnsponfofion of food grains of Chha'Hisgarh Smfe Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Le. noiioe inviting fenders dated 14.08.2003 issued by respondenf No.4. 2. The pe’iiiioner's pe‘ii‘rion is ihaf he is o permanenf residenf of Surojpur, Districi': Surguja, he is engaged in fhe business of fronsport and of presen'r he is fransporfing goods of 'H-Ie respondent Corporafion i.e. Chhoffisgarh Shite Civil Supplies Corporafion Limifed. If has further been menfioned that one day When the petitioner went to the Office of respondent No.4 on some official work. he was surprised fo know thaf the tender forms were being filled up by certain contractors for transportation of food gfains to the aieas of Odgi, Premnagar, Surajpur, Bhaiyathon, Ramanujnagar, Lakharlpur and Udeipur. On this, the petitioner - . enquired . from respondents 4 é 5, but they mfuseiE/ ,lJ 2 g p[//, disclose ‘rhe demils of *he fender nofioe, bu? some how, he came fo know *hrough ofher confrdc?or ‘thof 3-4 dws earlier, The ‘render- nofice was issued and The same was published in daily newspaper ‘Ambikavani'. Copy of fhe same is Annexure P-1. Af'rer ooming fo know abou'l' 1'his, The peTiTioner immedinTely moved an application before respondent No.4 menTioning Therein TheT he is prepared To enTer inTo The said conTracT even uT 10% less ruTe Than The lowesT rate quoTed by any of The Tenderers. Copy of The applioaTion is Annexure P-Z. RespondenTs 4 & 5 have arbitrarily and in order To give benefiT To a parTicular conTracTor, adopTed The above procedure. The peTiTioner is sTill a conTracTor of The respondenT CorporaTion and he has sTill goT sufficienT conTracTs wiTh The respondenT CorporaTion. The billing sheeT of The peTiTioner is Annexure P-3. . The peTiTioner being a TransporT conTracTor was regularly visiTing The respondenT’s Office, buT The noTiee inviTing Tender was never affixed on The noTioe board of The DisTricT Office or Block Office, nor iT was published in any popular and widely circulaTed newspaper, buT iT was published only in Ambikavani on 19.08.2003, which is being circulaTed in a very small area. This all has been done in order To see Thai" The peTiTioner should noT parTicipaTe in The Tender. The acTion of The respondenTs is violaTive of Arficles 14 a 19 of The ConsTiTuTion of India. The said aeTion of The mspondenTs is arbiTrary as no opporTuniTy was given To The peTiTioner’To parTicipaTe in The Tender by publishing in widely circulaTed newspapers, raTher inTenTionally iT was published in a small news paper 'Ambikavani' on 19*“ of AugusT, 2003 in which The last daTe for submission and opening of The Tenders was fixed as 25'“ of August 2003. Therefore, a wriT in The naTure of mandamus/oerTior-ari direcTing The respondenTsJ'o call fresh Tenders by giving reasonable Time and also by way of publishing in popular newspaper be issued and The noTice inviTing Tenders issued by respondenT No.4 be quashe/d’ // /1 4. Return has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 5 in which they have specifioaHy denied the allego‘rions levelled by fhe pe'l'i1'ioner. If has been mentioned fhaf fhe notice invi‘ring fenders was issued on 14*” August 2003, in pursuanee of fhe direcfions du+ed 05.08.2003 issued by The Slate Civil Supplies Corpomfion (Annexure R-I). The allegafions of 'H1e pefifioner are baseless. If is no+ cat-rec? fha'r ‘Ambikavani‘ is not a widely circula‘red newspaper. Ambikavani is a local newspaper, which has a circulation of 20,000 copies and is widely circulated in the entire division of Ambikapur and even the notice was affixed on the notice board of the District Office of the Corporation. As per para 5.9 of the petition, the petitioner is a regular visitor of the respondent's (Corporation) office, then he must have come to know about the notice inviting tenders as the same was affixed in the notice board of the office. . It has been mentioned in the rejoinder that as per the rules of the Chhattisgarh Storage Purchase Rules 2002, the notice inviting tenders should have been published at least in two local newspapers, which has not been done in the present case. . It has been mentioned in the additional return submitted by respondents 2 to 5 that after issuance of the notice inviting tenders, the respondents received in all 18 tenders. Therefore, the petition be dismissed. . I have heard Mrs. Hamida Siddique, counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Govt. Advocate for respondents 1 & 6; and Mr. Prashant Mishra, counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 5. . Mrs. Hamida Siddique, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is presently a contractor of the respondent Corporation under a contract and is transporting the goods of the respondent and he is a regular visitor to the Office of the [ respondent. The notice inviting tenders was not affixed on the notice l , board of fhe respondenf‘s Office and fhe Ambikavani newspaper is no1' a widely circuia‘red newmper. Therefore, wide publici‘I'y was no? given to the natioe inviiing ianders. Moreover, if is said Thaf the notice invi‘ring renders was for shorf farm whereas, if has no‘f been menfioned in 1'he no'tioe inviting tenders dated 14.08.2003 itself (Annexure P-1). Therefore, the procedure adopted by the respondents in issuance of notice inviting tenders for transportation of food grains of the respondent Corporation to various areas is illegal, arbitrary and the some should be quashed. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 5, submitted that the whole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is baseless. There is nothing on record, which shows that the notice was not affixed on the notice board of the respondent's office. Moreover, Ambikavani newspaper is a widely circulated newspaper in the whole division of Ambikopur and around about 20,000 copies are being published which are sent to various areas of Ambikapur division. In response to the notice inviting tenders, in all 18 tenderers have submitted their tenders which itself shows that wide publicity was given to the notice inviting tenders through 'Arnbikavani' and also by affixing the notice on the notice board and 18 tenderers who have submitted their tenders are from various places like Ambikapur, Wadrafnagar, Kusumi, Ramonujganj, Sitopur and Bishrampur. Therefore, the petition of the petitioner be dismissed. 10. Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned éovt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondents 1“ and 6 also adopted the argument of Mr. Prashant Mishra. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the notice inviting tenders was not given wide publicity and was not affixed on the notice board of the respondent's office. If we look into the paper (Annexure R—l) filed by respondents 2 to 5 along with the return, a perusal of it reveals that t/ N r 11. fhe Chha'rrisgarh Sh're Civil Supplies Corpomfion Limifed, Raipur, vide ifs lef'rer da‘ted 05.08.2003 infima‘red responderrr No.4 fha‘t fhe permission to issue short ferm fender notice for fransporfn'rion of food grains is approved looking fro ‘Hne urgency involved in fhe ma‘Her and short fem tender- no‘rioe may be issued on the Iocol b sis. In pursuance of *his direcfion of +he Head Office. respondenf No.4 issued o no‘rice inviting Tenders in question and if is not disputed that The some was pubiished in The local newspaper namely, 'Ambikavani’. In pursuance of fha‘r nofioe invi'ring fenders, in all 18 fenderers have submiffed 1heir fender forms and fhey all are not only from Ambikapur, bu‘r from ofher five places also. From This facf if is evidenf fhaf fhe nofice invi'h'ng fenders was widely circulafed. Moreover, respondenfs 2 fo 5 have submiffed a leffer of approval dafed 16.05.2002 issued by fhe Regisfrar of Newspapers, Govf. of India, along wifh fhe refurn in which if has been menfioned fhaf 'Ambikavani' newspaper has published 17,503 copies daily during fhe year 2000 and fhe some was found on enquiry conducfed by fhe Officer under Secfion 19-F of fhe Press and Regisfrafion Acf, 1867. In fhe last line, it has h an menfioned that the regularity in publishing fhe newspaper is 96.99%. Moreover, it has been mentioned in the return that the notice inviting fenders was aiso affixed in the notice board of the respondent's office. 12. A perusal of Annexure P—2, the copy of the application which was given by the petitioner to respondent No.4 on 25*" August, 2003, offering that he is prepared to transport the goods at 10% less rate than the lowest rate quoted by any tenderer, shows that in this application it has no where been mentioned that the notice inviting tenders was not affixed on'the notice board of the respondent. However, it has been mentioned that Ambikavani newspaper is not a widely circulated newspaper It is ewdenf from the petitioners petition that he is a transport contractor of the respondent Corporation and presently he is ‘ transporting the goods of respondent No 4 and he is regularly Visiting i J i i , 1'he office of fhe respondent If a confmc'l'or regularly visi‘rs ‘H‘Ie office, men i‘r can hardly be said that if was no? known 1'0 him about 1he notice inviting fenders because, when the person who is already engaged in the business of transport of the respondent and he visits the respondent's office regularly, then in normal course the officials of the office are supposed to disclose the fact of the notice inviting tenders. In the local newspaper, the notice inviting tender-s was published as per- the guidelines given by the Head Office vide Annexure R-i. As far as publication of notice in two newspapers is concerned, it has been said that it is the requirement when any tender notice is issued for purchase of stores. 13. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to establish that wide publicity was not given to the notice inviting tenders and therefore, the petitioner and some other persons could not come to know about the notice inviting tenders and they were not able to submit their tender items. When 18 persons from various places like, Ambikapur, Wadrafnagar, Kusumi, Ramanujganj, Sitapur and Bishranipur, were able to know about the notice inviting tenders and in response to the notice inviting tenders they wbmitted their tender forms, it cannot be held that the notice inviting tenders was not widely circulated“ Therefore, the petition of the petitioner is iiable to be dismissa d and it is dismissed. Sd/- L.c.BHADoo ‘ Judge sit . ..