$0 HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILASPUR Wm Pemion (C) No.5871 uf 2010 i’ETITIONER: National Cleaning Services Thraugh its Direcfor- Syed Maqbool Ali, aged abom 32 year-s, 5/0 5yed Muqsood Ali, Bkwk A/2i Second Floor Ne'rajl Complex, Jarhabha'ra, Bilaspu‘r (C6) Vemus RESPONDENTS: Sm're of Chhafi‘isgarh, Through Secrefar'y, Healf'n and Family Welfare Department DK5 $l1awan, Manimyala, Raipur (C(§) 2. Calleci'or Cum Presidem Jeevandeep Samifi, Sardur Pa'l'el Disir'ic? Hospital, Bilaspur (CG) 3. Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medieal Superinfendenf, Dish‘ic‘f Hospifal, Bilaspur- (C9) 4. Sunni security Services Behind Raja Raghuraj Sfadium, Imlipam, Bilaspur- (C5) Present Shri Mafeen Siddique, counsel for fhe peiifioner. Shri U.N.S. Deo, (éow’. Advocai’e for'ihe Sm‘l'e. Divieian aench: Han'ble 5hri miirendm Mishm & Hon'ble $hr-i RN, Chandrakar, JJ. ORDER (8-10- 2010) The following order- of ihe Cour+ was passed by Dhirendra Mishr-a‘ JV 1i Respondem' No.3 invi'red ‘renders for H’oase Keeping for- a period of one year \_\vide +ender' notice dated 28-8-2010. The petitioner as also responden'r { a? N94 parficipafed in The fender and submiffed *heir offer aparf from others. . Grievance of fhe pe‘ri‘rioner is Tha‘l’ as per oondi'rions of the NIT, fhe tender wa$ :ro be submi++ed in Mo envebpes. In envelope ‘A.’, the documenfs necessary +0 esfablish eligibiliw and in envebpe ‘B‘, price bid was To be submii’Ted. The price bid in envelope B was To be opened only of +hose fenderers who fu!fi" eHgibHii’y criteria. , The validify of regisirafion certificate of respondent No.4 under the Shops and Esmblishmeni' Ac? had already eome fe an end in +he year 2008 and his services were ob‘rained by Sardar Pate! Disfricf Hospifal in fhe pasf and his contmcf was ‘rermina‘fed as inere was no improvemenf in his working despi're 3 notices were issued 1'0 him. He aiso did no? have necessary experience of cieaning work The document submif‘ied by respondenf No.4 in enveiope ‘A' was incompiek, even fhen envelope ‘B’ confaining his price bid was opened which is confrary to The rules and condi‘rions of iender notice, as, as per clause 22 fenderers should have an experience of working in ihe hospimi for n minimum period of one mon‘l'hi under clause 24i the ‘ienderers must have valid regisTroi'ion prior 1'0 one year under fhe Shops ond Es‘fablishmen‘r Rules, 1958. . Heard Shri Matin 5iddique‘ learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the pe'i'i‘rion as also ‘I'he documenfs annexed wi'i'h ‘ihe pe‘i’ition‘ . The petitioner has not fiied any document to establish that respondent No.4 did no? file necessary document as per ierms and condifions of confruct I? is also no? elear whei’her fhe confroc‘i’ has been finalized and work order has been issued in favour of anyone, as There is no pleading in fhe pe'rii'ion in fhis regard. The pefi‘i’ioner has averred in 'i'he pe‘rifion fha'i' he has already submii‘fed his objecfion‘againsf offer of respondent No4 yide his oomploin‘i' of Annexure-P/3‘. x \y \ 0% 6. Thus, baking 1’0 fhe nofur-e ef dispufe raised byd'he pg'ri'l'ioner in fhis pe‘ritien, which is in rekd'ion 1'0 work commcf of House Kgeping for The Districr HospifaL we are no? inclined To en?er-'!'ain This pe‘i'i'l'ion in We. abserice of mievanf material 1'0 esmblish The. ailegqfion and we dispose of fhis pei-i‘rion wifh liber'ry 1'0 The paitionarf to raise his grievanms, which are raised in fhis pe‘i’i‘i'ion, before. réspondeni No.3 who shall decide +hg same in accordance wi'l’h 1'erms and conditions of NIT. Sd/- ' Sdl— Dhirendra Mishra RANGANATH CHAND Judge Judge / ///’j;_rfw Barve