HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVIS10N BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNILKUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Petition (CtNo. 1287 of 2010. Petitioner Kanchan Creation Ltd., A company duly registered under theprovisions of the Companies Act, having its regjstered office at 30, Jail Road, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, Through it's Director, Shri Abbas Maru, son of Ali Hussain Maru, aged about 42 years, resident of Rehmat-e-Rasool Vflla, Asgar Bada, Ama Naka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS Respondents 1 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., a successor company of Chhattisgarh State Electriclty Board, through the Chief Engineer (T & C), CSEB,Shed No.4, PO - Sundernagar, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 Chief Engineer fT&C), CSEB, Shed No.4, PO - Sundemagar, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 Superintending Engineer, OfTM^ of Chief Engineer (T&C), Chhattisgarh State Power Transmisston Company Ltd., CSEB, Shed No.4 PO Sundemagar, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Writ Petition under Article 226 of the ConstUution of India Present: Shrt Saurabh Dangi, counsel for the petitioner. Oider >th (29m March, 2010) .:3'E*"a». .-s3 !' ^giJP^ Jf '::,, -^y ^•^.sss^' The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Shri Saurabh Dangi, learned counsel for the prtitioner is heard on admisslon. 2) The petitioner - Company has filed this writ petition for the following retiefs: "(10.1) It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may ta'ndly be pleased to call for the entire records conceming the present NIT from the possession of the respondents for tts kind perusal. (10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned Clause3(b)(ii) contained in the NIT(ANNEXUREP-1) (10.3) Any other relief/ reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may think frt and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition may also be pleased to be granted to the petitioner." 3) The petitioner, thus, in substance is seeking quashing of Clause 3 (b) (ii) contained in the Notice Inviting Tender (Annexure-P/1). 4) Clause 3 (b) (ii) of Notice Inviting Tender reads as follows: " Contract will not be awarded to any bidder who has been penalized by any Labour Laws Enforcement Authority for non-observance of any of the labour laws during contract period. All the biddera will have to furnish a certlflcate in this regard as per Annexure-HI." li:lil IH ^ /,. y 5) Shri Saurabh Dangi, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the above-mentioned Clause 3(b) (ii) would result in exctusion of many ofthe bidders. 6) The above-quoted Clause 3 (b) (li) in the Notice tnviting Tender only excludes those biddere who have been penalized by any Labour Laws Enforcement Authority for violation of the provisions of labour laws. The said Clause indirectly ensures the compliance of beneflcial provisions of Labour Laws. This Clause apparently discourages violation/ non-compliance of Labour< Laws. As such, the above-mentioned Clause 3 (b) (ii) of the Notice tnvlting Tender cannot be termed as itlegal or unreasonable by any stretch of Imagination. 7) We, therefore, do not find any substance in the petitioner's challenge to the above-mentioned Clause 3 (b) (ii) of the Notice Inviting Tender. 8) The writ petition, therefore, is liabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. , Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu