80 V. HIGH COURT OF CHHAniSGARH AT HLASPUR WritPetltlonNo.480S(ZO(B Mte Chaudhan Beclronic & Company. Vs. Cl)hat8sgati State Industiia! Devetopmait Coipn, Ltd. & three olhefs. Writ Petifton No. 480612006 GhliatSsgarh Aqua (Pnvate) Urited Vs. ChhatBsgarti State Industrial Development Coipn. Ud. & ftree otheis WritPetlttonNB. 4807)2006 NavBharatSteels Vs. Chhattisgarh State Industrial Devetopment Coipn. Ltd. S three othefs JUDGUENT FOR CONSIDERATION -5C.,. Sdf- OiiipRaos^bOeshmukh Judge Hon'ble the CtiieT Justtee (CNefiludce) .09.2006 Postfor Order: Sdl- S.R. NayaK Chief .lusuce sdf- Dilip Raosa'-ieb Deshmukh judge HIGH C.OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4805/ 2006 CORAM: Hon'ble Shri S.R.Nayak, Chief Justice & Hon'bte Shri D.R-Deshmukh, J. Petitioner Respondents 4. M/s. Chaudhari Electronic & Company. A proprietorehip firm, engaged in manufacturing and sale of Hand Pumps and spare parts, having office at Shiv Talkies Square, Bilaspur, represented through Power of Attorney Holder Shri Rajul Jain, S/o Shri Subhas Chandra Jain, aged about 26 years, resident of Shiv Talldes Square, Bilaspur. Versus Chhattisgarh State Indusfrial Development Corporation Limited. A Government <^ Chhattfsgarh Undertaking. A company registered and incorporated under tndian Companles Act, 1958, represented through the Managing Director, Ground Floor. L.I.C. Commereial Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Chief General Manager, ChhatUsgarh State Industrial Devetopment CorporaUon Limitad, L.I.C. Commercia! Complex, Pandri, Ralpur (C.G.) Public Heaith Engineering Department, through the Secretary, D.K.S. Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). Publlc Health Engineering Department, through Engineer in Chief, Raipur (C.G.). Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition No. 4806/ 2006 Chhattisgarh Aqua (Private) Limited. A company registered and incorporated under Indlan Companies Act, 1956 having registered office atShed No.5; AKVN Sheds, Siltara Industrlaf Area, Raipur, representecf through Authorized Signatory - Akshai Chauhan, S/o Shri P.R.Chauhan, aged about 28 years, 1/17 Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla Unh/sreity Campus, Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1. ChhattisgarhState Industrial Development Corporation Limited. A Government of ChhatUsgarh Undertaking. A company registared and incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956, represented through. Petitioner Respondents ^ »»'• ». the Managing Director, Ground Floor. L.I.C, Commereial Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Gsneral Manager, ChhatBsgarh State Industrial Developm&nt Corporation Limted, L.I.C. Commercial Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Public Healfh Engin&ering Department, through the Secretary, D.K.S. Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). 4. Pubtic Health Englneering Department, through Engineer in Chief, Raipur (C.G.). Writ Petition No. 4807/ 2006 Nav Bharat Steels. A proprietorehip firm, engaged in manufacturing and sale of Hand Pumps and spare parts, having works at Kondatarai, Raigarh, represented through proprietor Smt. Kallash Gupta, W/o Shri H.S.Gupta, aged about 65 years, resident of A-123, Inderpuri, New Delhi-12. Versus 1. Chhattisflarh State Industrial Development Corporation ' Limited. A Government of Chhattlsgarh Undertatang. A company registered and incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1%6, represented through the Managing Director, Ground Floor, L.I.C. Commercial Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief General Manager, Chhattisgarli State Industriai Development Corporation Limited, L.I.C. Commercial Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Public Health Engineering Dspartment, ttirough the Secretary, D.K.S. Manfralaya, Raipur (C.G.). 4. Public Heaith Engineering Oepartment, ttirough Engineer in Chief, Raipur (C.G.). Shri Saurabh Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Yashwant Singh, learned G.A. assisting Shri Prashant Mishra, learned Addl. A.G. for the State/respondents No. 3 & 4. ORDER (Passedon 1<| .09.2006) The following order of the Court was passed by DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH, J. ^ The petitioners, who were the successful bidders in the tender floated by the respondente herein, had eartier chaltenged the award of Rate Contract by the respondente herein to one Arihant tndustries by fiiing writ petitions No. 4001/2006,4002/2006 & 400S/2(X)6on various grounds. In their return, Arihant Industriss asserted that the Rate Contract awarded to them by the respondents herein had besn cancelled with immsdiate effect. In view of the above, all the three writ petitions No. 4001/2006. 4002/2006 & 4003/2006 filed earlier were dismissed as having become infructuous 2. The pstitioners herein have filed these writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the respondents are now proceeding to make huge pasffnents to Arihant Industries for the period, during which, stay was granted in the earlier writ petitions i.e. W.P. Nos. 4001/2006. 4002^K»& 4003/2006. The pleadings are not specific inasmuch as it is not disclosed as to when and what amount was being paid to Arihant Industn'es by the respondents and why? 3. Having heard the tearned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petitions No. 4805/20(%, 4806/2006 and 4807/2006 suffer from ttie defect of /ocus standi. The Rate Contract awarded to Arihant Industries having been cancelled and all the three wit petition Nos. 4001/2006,4002/2006 & 4003/20CK fited eariier, having been dismissed as infructuous. no cause of action sun/ived in favour of the petitioners to assait any subsequent payment being made to Arihant Industries during the period of stay ordsred bythis Court. The present writ (^titions have not been filed by ths petitionere as pro bono pubRco. The Rate Contract awarded to Arihant tndustries having been cancetled, the Anjanl petitioners herein have absolutely no tocus standi to file these writ petitions. The pleadings in para 5.7 of the writ petition are also as vague as it could be. If the respondents are making any payments to Arihant Industries for the period, during which, stay granted by this Court was operative, the petitioners can have no grtevance. The petitioners also did not array Arihant Industries as a respondent in these writ petitions, Thus. there is a serious defect of non-joinder of necessary party in atl these petitions. 4. In this view of the matter, we dismiss the writ petition Nos. 4805/2006,48W20X and 4807/2006. Sd/- S.R. Nav'ak ChiefJustice D'l"P ftao^°esh u judge /'' 1 - i"i