mGHCOURT OP CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P. <a No,3946of201Q PRTITIONER: Bajrang Lal Agrawal, S/o Shri Malu Rain Agrawal, aged atoout 47 years, Occupation business, .R/o Ravi Motor Mohadi, TeIisU AbhanpiM-, District Raipur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS 2. Chhattisgarh Civil _Supplies Corporatioa, through its Managiag Director, Bal Ashram, Kachlieiy Chowk, Raipzir (CG) The District Manager, CIiliattisgarh Civil Supplies Corporatipn Limited, Raigarh (CG) Present Shri Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner. ShriV.R. Tiwari, coiinsel for the respondents. Dlvislon Biench: Hon. 8h»iDliirendra MIshra & Hoa. Shrt R.N. Chandra3ka»,JJ. ORDBR (12-11-2010) The foflowing order ofthe Court was p^sed by Dhlreadra Misfara, J. 1. The petitioner has ffled fhis petition and prayed for the foBowiQ^ reliefs:- • That the Hon'ble C-ourt inay kmdlybe pleased to issue an appropriate writ/writa quash-ing the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 24.7.2010 and Annexure P-2 6f even dated issiied by the respondent no.2; • That the respondent no.2 may kuidly be directed to accept the tender of the petitioner on the basis of tbe / reconiinendation ofttie Tender Conuiuttee and to issue work order in favour offhe petitioner; • Anv other relief which this HonTsle Court inay deeni fit and nroper inav also be passed ia favour of fhe petitioner. ^ 2. Learaed coiinsel for tlie petitioner subimtted fhat in response to the tender notice dated 31rt May 2010 for the work ofrack haadlmg and transportmg, the petitioner subinitted his offer along with other two bidders. Their teehnical bid was found to be vaUd, thereafter their prices bids were opened. Since fhe rates quoted by the petitioner were foiuid to be lowest for traasportation ofwheat/rice, tbe Tender Coiatnittee recominended the petitioner's name for awardiaj contract, however, fhe work was not awarded to the petitioner and fresh tenders were invited after canceling the tender arbitrarily. He further argued that the petitioner quoted Rs. 10,95 per bag of 65 kg, however, thc saine has been rejected, whereas sioular transportation work has been approved at Rs. 15.90 per bag for fhe work under the. District Manager of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation, Raigarh. : 3. On tlie other hand, Shri V.R. Tiwari, learaed counsel appearing for the respondents aiyied that as per conditioss oftlie NIT dated 31rt May, 2010 the tender docuinents were to be purchased frotn the District OfBces of fhe Corporation by payment of Rs.500/- (Annexure-R/5) and duly fiUed in tender fonns were to be subinitted by l0*h June, 2010, however, fhe petitioner did not subinit his ofFer in prescribed tender documcnts. The offers received in response to the tender notice were forwarded to the District Level Comxnittee wherefroni the same were forwarded to fhe Head Office for coafirtnation aod a decision was taken to cancel the tender and to invite fresb tenders by pubUcation ia the newspaper. Presh tender process has already been coininenced aad the petitioner has already participated in the fresh tender process. 4, Heard leamed counsel for the parties aad perused the docuinents. S. Iridisputably, the bidders are reqiiired to subratit their offei^ by duly fflled in tender dociunents after purchasing the saaie froai the District Office of the Corporation. Since ofFer subiaitted by the petitioner was not in prescnbed tender docuinents, the Corporation canceUed the entire tender process and invited fresh offers vide Aimexure-P/1. Froin NIT of Armexure-R/5, it is clear tbat teader docuinents were to be purchased froxn the District Office of the Corporation and the offers ivere to be subinitted in prescribed tender I'^sntiils^ documents. NIT also empowers ibe Maaaging Director to rejeet any tender wifhout assigning any reason. 6, Since the respondents have invited fi-esb offers after cancelmg the tender process in its entirety and the petitioner was also competent to participate itt the fresh tender process, we are of the opinion that no right has been created iu favoiu- ofthe petitioner simply because his offer was lowest in the tender process which has already been canceHed. 7. We find no siibstance jn this writ petition, fhe saine deserves to be andisherebv disiuissed. ... „ Barve Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge |^ Sd/- 4 R.N. Chandrakar] Judge