(3 ^n,s'., ^»"ti IN THB mGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIL&SPUR (C3) WRIT PETITION N0. .^<5'3 OF 2005 BETS^EEN 47/^ ^/ ^WA ^MT^ •" Sayeed Khan s/o Shrl Hatim Khan, aged aboat 42 years, re-sident of Moudba Para, Raipur, Tahsil aud District Raipur (CG)« 7^f / ^7 .<'" 1< crff f> /y/p 7^Afv /2, ^'.^ /V ^2' ¥/ -^ PETITIONER A<N D The Stste of Chhattisgarh,through the Secretary .., Local self Government.Goverr-ment of Chhattj.sgarh, D.K.S. Building, Rai-pur (CG) Munlc.i.pal Corporation, Raipur, through its Coinmissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (CG)• The Cominissior.er, Manicipal Corporation, Raipur (CG). Ramakant Daga, Propr-tetor shri Mahalaxmi Enterprises» Gudliyari. Road, Rsipur (CG). RESPOHDENTS [s,«. 3rry^s^ WRIT PETITIOK UMDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTCTUTIOK ^iT^. NWSSWSWy^/^ ^ ''•^- OF INOIA r!i S7rf. _1 -O->¥<*.-!/-j-i I--"- A-C—A^t-u-.—El^-^—^-t^L •W.) li'tii'inwuini HI6H CQURT OF:JUDICATURE_ATBILASPUR. CHH^TTIS6ARH Sayeed Khan - Versus- State of Ch'hattisgctrh & others ,th POST FOR OR&ER ON 10" FEBRUARY, 12005 Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge '^SMi^ : i 1.111 il38 [ill :n!l:; FEJ' I i ii.ai] N,!| HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. WHATTLS6AW Writ Petition No.389 of 2005 Say'eed Khan -.Versus - u< State of Chhattisgarh & others Present: - Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate: Mr.Sumesh Bajaj, &y.i?ovt. Adv. Mr. Pankaj Agarwal/Advocate: Mr. P. biwakar, Sr. Adv. with Miss. Sunita Jain, Advoarte'. For the petitioner. For respondent.No.l 1 For respondent; No.2 & 3. For the respondent No.4 QR t5 ER (Pdssed onfb +h February, 2005) L.C. BH^&OO. J, 1. By woy of this writ petition an unsuccessful bidder has made yet another' attempt to challenge the contract awarded in favour of respondent No.4 :by respondent No.2 & 3-MunidpalGorporation, Raipur in the yearl994 whereby respondentNo.2 & 3 entered into an.agreement with respondent No.4 herein for constructionof eight; shops in the ccxmpusof Saheed SmdrakSchool, ftaipur and for which respondent No.4 bid to pay respondent No.2 & 3 Rs.4,01,000/-|wgs| accepted. As per agreement, respondent No.4 agreed upori to construct unfinished eight shops of, which respondent No.4 !was| entitled to take the premium, those shops were to be alloca'ted by^ respdndent No^4 on 30 years lease basis to the priva-te persohs with | the approval crf Corporation and responderit Corporotion wa3 enti-riecl . ; to charge rent at the ro-te of Rs-2/- per square_fee1 aa II iiaa ^^i ;^il !aisi Paae2of3 x ;;[;1"! IW ~sw 2. After entering into the agreement in the year 1994 when respondent No.4 was in progress of constructing the shops as per agreement, all Of a sudden respondent No.3 yide its order dated 21.8.1995 stopped respondent No.4 herein from constructing the said shops with immediate effect. Being aggrieved by that order, respondent No.4 filed a writ petition before the then High Cpurtof M.P. at Jabdlpur, which came to be registered as W.P. No.2887/95, in which the order of status quo wos granted in favour of respondent No.4 herein. However, it seems that respfcndent No.4 herein moved andpplication before the respondent No.2 & 3-Council on 8.6.2004 detailing vdrious facts of losses incurred by him as welt as by Municipal Corporation and requested that earlier order waspassed withbut hearing him and on unjustified grounds, therefore, that order be recalled and he be allowed to construct the said shops so that the public interest should not suffer. It appears that on this le+ter a resolution was passed on 22.8.2004 by the Mayor-in-Council, Municipal Corporation, Raipur in which a decision was taken that 1-hepossession of the shqps in question can be given to respondent No.4 and ultimately, respondent No.4 was asked to withdraw the writ petition beanng W.P. No. 2887/1995 fiied by him. In response to that, respondent No.4 withdrew the said writ petition and thereafter, respondent No.4 was allowed to go with the construction work and ultimotely, vide letter • dated 24.1.2005 respondent No.4 informed |fhe respondent No.2 & 3 that he has completed •the construction work and also requested to executg the !egse deed in fcwour of persons mentioned in that tetter. 1 two 3. The petitioner ^ herein aggrieved by the decisioniof respondent ^|(|.Z; &. 3 awarding contractond entering intoc^reement with respon^erffi 4 No.4 filed a writ petition before the^ then 1-ligh Court 6f M;P..!i^ year 1994 which cdme to be re9istered as W.P. No.4476/19S4 Ithdt writ pe+ition was dismissed by the Court by a reiis6necl|si^er' i.iliil ^iSiiK PageSofS doted 2.8.1995 on merit as well as on the ground of concealing material facts from the Court. In that order it was held that the contract awarded to respondent No.4 was perfect and there was no ille9dlity or irregularity. However, when respondent No.2 & 3 all of a sudden stopped respondent No.4 from constructing the shops, respondent No.4 filed the writ petition, in th^t case in the year1995 order of status quo was granted in fwour of respondent No.4, as mentioned earlier, and ultima^ely, in the year 2004 respondent No.2 & 3 took a decision that respoVident No.4 be allowed to continue with the construction work. 4. As mentioned above, Contract in question entered into between respondent No.4 & respondent No.2 i&. 3 has already been tested on the Judidal scrutiny by the'Court in W.P. No.4476/1994 filed by the petitioner herein by a lengthy order ond after discussing ai! the points raised by the petitioner herein decided the same, therefore, this second writ petition is not maintainable. Moreover, the petitioner is a unsuccessful bidder, he has no right to challenge that as to why respondent No.2 & 3 by withdrawing the order of 1995 allowed respondent No.4 to go on with the construction work. As tiie agreement was already entered into between the parties and in compliance of that respondent No.2 & 3 had allowed respondent No.4 to construct the .said shops, morsover, construction was already completed in the month of January, 2005,'thet'efore, in my opinion there is no point to be ruised in this writ petition and same is devoid of merit. 5. In the result, the petition is disniissed. No order as to the costs. Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge