^,.. t: l±SlLCQURTJ3EJUDtCATURECHHATTIS^ D!VIS!ONBENCH CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ PETtTIONER Wl 1.5.358._of_2006 Puran Lal Jotwani, aged about 33 years, son of Shri Kishan Chand Jotvrani, resident of Tilda Neora, Post Neora, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 1. The Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited through - Its Managing Director, Head Office, Behind Madina Buiiding, Baal Ashram Premises, Kachhari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Chief General Manager (Transport), Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation, Head Office- Kachhari Chowk , Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Manager, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation, Distrtct Office- Devendra Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Shri J.N. Nande, learned counsel for the petitionsr. (Passed on 04 October 200S$ The following ora! order of the Court was passed by I.R. NAYAK, CJ. The petitioner in response to th®advertisement issued by the 1st respondent ca!!ing for tenders for transporting food-grains within the jurisdictjon of Simga as wel! as Tilda depot, submitted his tenders, but he did not compiy wifh the condition No. 4.2 of the tender notification. In that view of the matter, She 1 respondent did not consider the tender submitted by the petitioner. In the circumstance, thls writ ;f-,«—~-mN- -s.' petition is filed for a direction to the respondents-authorities to consider the tender submitted by the petitioner. (2) A short question that arises for decision is whether the respondents are justified in refusing to consider the tender submitted by the petitioner. is needless to state that unless a persons who submits tender fulfills tender conditions, he would not acquir®a right to be considered. Condition No. 4.2 ofthe notifieation provides thus: 4.2 F)R<,1*1'< ^ WI^ 5.00 ^TEI (% TTN? ?fRa 1TO) ^ wf w sqw gwr ^ra TfRrafta {^IPT/IIRR' ^ •gqCT aiargT yq ^ll'H'^y fNlT ^ SRPfcT ^ WI^ 4 ftTO ^T rf (2003-04, 2004-05 ^ 2006-08) ^ f^ft ^! q4 4 qtfe?T wn ^ (^rafwi gg^ gra ^} ^t wra^ OTTW ^THI Slfefe ^PTT | Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce the experience certificate as required under condition No. 4.2. However, it wasthe contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the certificate dated 19 August 2006, a copy of which is produced as Annexure P/3 at page No. 52 ofthe material papere woufdsatisfy ths condition No. 4.2 ofthe tender notification. Annexure P/3 dated 13 August 2008 reads as follows: WM.S 'tor WBT t ^ <ft y? ^te wf ^te SJ'-il4tC'< ^ 2005-06 ^ ^SS WSff SPRy iCT Tfel^T {^qT ITV t W? ^RTff S? 'TOT irar i?9 ^te WBff ^Rci^-i 'ECT yf ^mti" ':??S^^^i, w •5- (3) Annexure P/3 speaks only about the petitioner having worked is transporter in the year 2005-2006 for an institution at Abhanpur. Therefore, Annexure P/3, it cou'd not be said, satisfies the condition No. 4.2 of the tender notification. !t is needtess to state that the respondents-authonties can refuse a tender of a person when it finds that such applicant for contract does not satisfy the terms and conditiQns of the tender notification. Therefore, we cannot take any exception to the action of the respondents-authorities in not considering the tender of the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge c^ r