IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition ( C) No.^223 of 2006 In the matter of Petitioner ^) \^"3^ ^^^^1" e'y'y (2) •¥i'j:. ^^ '..• y :</^"' /••' -3-i Tip Top General Agencies Private Limited, a company incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act 1956 through Director Vineet Krishan Chaudhri 80/1, Btock-2, WHS Kirti Nagar, NewDelhi-110015(lndia) Vineet Krishan Chaudhri S/o Late S. K. Chaudhri aged about 49 years resident of House No. 44 Road No. 75 Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi (India) Versus 'South Eastern Coal Fields Limited (A subsidiary of Coat India Limited Government of India undertaking) through Chief General Manager (Material Management) Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) India jBefore.: Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his companion judaes of the Hon'ble Hiah Court of Judicature Chhattisaarh at Bilaspur. Writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of suitable directions orders or writs includina writs in the nature of mandamus certiorari etc. Respondents tj V.K.SHRSVASTAVA. J. 1) 2'! Tip Top General Agencies Private Limited, a company incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act 1956 through Director Vineet Krishan Chaudhri 80/1. Block - 2, WHS Kirti Nagar, New Delhi - 110015(India) Vlneet Krishan Chaudhri S/o Late S.K. Chaudhri aged about 49 vears resident of House No.44 Road No.75 Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi Versus 1. South Eastem Coal Fields Limited ( Subsidiary of Coai India Limited Government of India undertaking) through Chief Genera! Manager (Material Management) Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) India Shri Neelabh Dubey, Counsei for the petitioners. ( Dated 15'-" November, 2006) The following oral order of the Court was passed by L-.--. ^^, The petitioners have submitted their bid in response to tender No.SECL / BSP / MMIA? / SEC ii! / B / PVC - BELT / 206, dated 17.01.2006 floated by South Eastern Coaifields Limited (for short " SECL"). Apprehending t'nat the technical bid of the petitioner might be rejected by the SECL, this writ petition is filed for a direction to the SECL not to reject the technica! bid of the petttioner - company on the grounds not contained in NiT or on vague and impossible grounds. If we may say so, the vvrit petition is totaliy misconceived and is based solely on subbu 2- imagination of the petitioner. There is abso.'utely no materia! laid°Before us on the basis of which we could possibly think that the SECL without any grounci and on vague and untenable grounds woutd reject the technical bid of the petitioner - company, so that the petitioners would be prevented from participating in the tender proceedings. Judicial review is meant to review the correctness of the administrative action when taken. Judicia! review wou!d a!so be sought in certaln cases to prevent an Authority in exercising the power when it is shown that the Authorit^ without fegal power is proceeding to do something to the prejuctice of writ petitjoner. None of these grounds are avai.'able in the present case. The writ petition is dismissed as misconceived and premature No costa. Sd/- ChiefJustice Stsf- V.K. Shrivastava Juclge ^ 'v- E