— -o..^ H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Suni! Kumar Sinha & Hon'bie Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma, JJ. Writ Petition 'O No.2258/2011 fe'L- Pafifirtna: i ^•i.ili^^i i^^i - i. Vs. 1. 2. 4. Rakesh S'ngh S/o. Late Umesh Singh, aged about 23 years, R/b. Rangnsth Singh Ward, Ward No.12, Chando Chauk Balrampur, P.S. Ba!rampur, Distt. Surguja (CG) {«•£-./»^-<i State "f Chhattisgarh ihrough the Secretary, uiband A(Jmjrj|strgtJQn grjjj D9y8lQDr"Snt Department, DKS B'nawan, Raipur (CG) The CollectQr Syrguja Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) Nagar Panchayat Balrampur through Chief Municipai Officer Nagar Panchayat Ba'rampur Distt. Surguja (CG) M/s. Shri Jitendra Shriwastava, S/o. Shri , Bramhamurty Shrivsstava, aged about 30 years, Contractor Environment & export tax barrier, R/o. Ward No.5, Nagar Panchayat Bairampur Distt. Surguja (C.G) Present: Mr. Bhupendra Singh, counsel for the petitioner. ^tA'' Aiit di'sTfh D^nrtl 1 J^**tfi>'r f"** fh" Ct-stQ,/v'eLf-y^^w!t46..^te' •I p n ivii. njii <?iiiyii,miici i-awtii ivi li ic OLCTlwicoj^tJituciii.o i Sx ^. Mr. CJK Rao with Mr. J.K. Saxena; counsel for respondents 3 & 4. ORAL QRDER f13.07.2011.^ '^ '-f ^ •-:' W.P.(C)No.2258./20lI Thefbllowina orderoftheGourtwas passed bvSunll KumarSinha;A 1. Nagar Panchayat, Balrampur/respondent No.3 published a notice inviting tende>son 18.3.2011 (Annexure-P/2). Tenders were invited for giving on contract paryavaran avsm niryat kar nake, Balrampur for collection of taxes for a period of one year commencing from 01.4.2011 to 31 .03.2012. !t was directed and disclosed that the closed envelops containing bids shouid reach to the office of respondent No.3 on or before 25.03.2011 till 4.00 pm. and the envelops would be opened on the same day at 5.00 p.m. 2. The petitioner was one of the aspirant and when he visited the office of respondent No.3 on 24.03.201 1, it was informed that the tender process is going to be cancelled, therefore, he did not send his ctosed envelop as per NIT dated 18.01.2011. Later on, by a notification dated 25.03.2011, issued by the Chief Municipa! Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Ba'rampur (Annexure-P/3), it was informed that the subject tender process which was to be finalized on 25.3.2011 has been stayed on account of some reason. C-opy of the notjfication has been filed as (Annexure-P/3). The said notification reads as under:- "<i>i'yf<?i^ ^TIR ^mr^Ri ^c^i^^ f^rar <i'<-'j,uii (BOtro) :—v^q»||:- ^•W^/Q,/Pprf1ffr/?TOqo/2011 s!<?!-<|i!^. f^ff^ 25/03/2011 g?fr di^c;,") ^ ^'H' ,^w uiKn f li'iih'"'i wr ?? i^gfe' w /t:?B5' 25.03.2011 vt fiwrft f^vr 1sir:fr w / l^ft ^i7"f ^ v^h't'iii ^7^7 "^ 5P?' 3p77^)' 3J?^IT (T^ ?B?3a(?' ,^377 >37(?7' ^ ,' a«?«,'yflw:- W.P.(C)No.2258/2011 g^/- ^SV '•7717 '//©*/3?©#,'ifl •7W 9979(7 Ivltwy . H?5W (wm) " 3. Thereafter, on 25.3.2011 , c!osed enyelops of five tenderers including respondsnt No.4 were opened and it was decided that contract shatl be awarded to respondent No.4, because, respondent No.4 offered highest bid Qf Rs.8,75,000/-. 4. Mr. Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the above action on the part of respondent No.3 is arbitrary and malafide. Even after notifying that the tender process has been stayed, closed envelopes were opened on 25.3.201 1, and "'Qrk was illegally awarded to respondent No.4. He also argued that note sheets "f Respondent No.3 would show that no reasons have been assigned to supercede the notificatiQn dated 25.3.2011 and the enve'ops were opened as if no such notificatiQ" was issued by respondent No.3. He furnished copies of applicat'QRs fi'ed by ths aspirant tendsrers, which show that all the applications were dispatehed through post office on 25.3.2011 and were receiyed by the office of respondent NQ.S on 25.3.2011 , which according to him appears to be managed and unreasonab!0, because, the <fsk sent through speed post would hardly reach even to a loca! p!ace on the same date. His submission is that even the hand writing of the applications are same which shows that respondents 3 & 4 joined their hands In g!oye and the impugned work was iilegally awarded jn favour of respondent No.4. ^ s' W.P.fC) No.2258/2011 5. On the other hand, 'earned counsel appearing for respondents 3 & 4 opposed these arguments. However, they could not dispute the fact that notificsttQn dstsd 25.3.2011 wss issusd bv fssDQndsnt No.3 snd \A/ithQut oassinQ snv ordsr for furthsr DrocssslnQ. flvs cSossd snvsiQDS rscslvsd by r8SDQnd9nt No.3 wers Qosned Bnd th8 contract wss swsrdsd 'n fsvour of respondent No.4. They have a!so not disputed that almost a!l the five persons, including respondent No.4 sent their closed envelops on 25.3.201 1 'A'hich were received in the office of respondent N".3 on the sams day. Furth.er they argued that since the petitioner was not a tenderer, therefore, he has no right to fite this writ petition chal'enging the tender process. 6. Ws hsvs hsard !©2rn9dcounss! for ths Dartlss st !snQth snd fl!so perused the records of the writ petition. 7. The petitioner has taken the plea that when he went to the office of respondent No.3 for enquiring about the tender, the authorities "f respondent No.3 verbally t"!d that the subject tender is goinQ t" be stayed/cancelled, therefore, he did not send his bid on the said information. This fact was formaliy dsnied by respondent No.3. There is evasive denial by respondent No.3 vide their reply, as they have contended that the petitioner has n"t shown any document to substantiate this fact. When the petitio.ner has p!eaded that it was the oral intimation that the tender process is going to be cancelled/stayed, there is no questiQp. of production of any such document. 8. On perusa! of th.e order sheets of the office of respondent No.3 as also the notification dated 25.3.201 1, it would be clear that respondent No.3/ !%?'SSRgv, B n & 'ss y / ^i~E"a' ..;'' f.''::'f'' ^f' f fc W.P.(C)No.2258./2011 Nagar Panchayat, on 25.3.2011 firstly notified that the entire tender process has been stayed on accou.nt of some reason and thereafter on the same day, five envelops, allegedly received by respondent No.3 on 25.3.2011 were opened and contract was awarded in favour of respondent No.4. Respondent No.3 has not denied the issuance of notification dated 25.3.2011. !f it was notified on 25.3.2011 that tender process has been stayed,without passing sny further order in this regard, respondent No.3 wou'd not have proceeded to open the bids on the same day and award the contract to respondent No.4 in a hurried manner . The aboye actio" of respondent No.3 appears to be arbitrary and malafide and Qpeningofthe ctosed enve!ops (bids) after issuance of notification dated 25.3.2011 is without any further order passed by respondent No.3 in this regard. 9. We note that all the enveiops were received QP. 25.3.2011 itseif. Even the applications contained in the envelops were also written on 25.3.2011. The above envelops were said be sent by speed post on 25.3.2011, which allegedly reached to the office of respondent No.3 on the same day. This does not appear to be reasonable on the face of it. I" norma! circumstances even by the speed post, the letters are not being delivered on the same day. All these create a doubt on the transparency of tender process adopted by respondent No.3. 10. Besides the above, we further gather from the note sheets of respondent No.3 that in the year 2009-10, collection on the subject barrier was Rs.8,65,000/-; in the year 2010-11 the collection was Rs.12,50,000/-, therefore, principal'y, a decision was taken that this year the officia! rate fe^. W.P.(C)No.2258./2011 should be fixed at Rs.13 lakhs for award'ng the contract. However, the contract was awarded in favour of respondent No.4 for Rs.8,75,000/- only. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we are unabte to susta'n the decisio" of respondent No.3 to award the subject contract to respondent No.4. The same deserves to beset aside. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.3.2011 (Annexure-P/1) awarding the subject contract to respondent No.4 is quashed. However, respondent No.3 would be free to call fresh tenders for awarding the said contract and take decision in accordance with law. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.S.Sharma Judge Bim