M/S Sukansha Conts. Thru Pro. ... vs Chief Engr.(Gen. O & M) & Another
2016 Latest Caselaw 1872 Bom

                                                           1                      wp5168.03

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                       
                               NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                               
                         WRIT PETITION NO.5168 OF 2003

    M/s. Sukanksha Constructions,




                                                              
    a proprietorship firm, through its
    proprietor Shri Sushil Madanlal
    Agrawal, r/o Vidya Nagar,
    Chhindwara Road, Nagpur-441 111. ...                                    Petitioner




                                                    
                     - Versus -  
    1) Chief Engineer (Gen. O & M),
       Chandrapur Super Thermal Power
                                
       Station, Chandrapur.

    2) M/s. Bhavana Constructions,
       C-11, Industrial Estate, Mul Road,
      

       Chandrapur, District Chandrapur. ...                               Respondents
                                       -----------------
   



    Shri R.E. Moharir, Advocate for respondent no.1.
                                       ----------------





                                              CORAM :    B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND 
                                                                   P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATED : APRIL 26, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :

Nobody appears for petitioner and respondent

no.2. Heard Shri Moharir, learned Counsel for

respondent no.1.

                                                2                          wp5168.03




                                                                               
    2)               The        petitioner   has    assailed      decision          of




                                                       

respondent no.1 to allot work of annual maintenance of

unelectrified portion of railway track in CSTPS Railway

siding. Tender notice was issued on 1/11/2003 and

bids were opened on 19/11/2003. The petitioner

challenges opening of bid of respondent no.2 on the

ground that it did not possess experience of doing

similar work in past.

3) This Court has while issuing notice in the

matter on 30/12/2003 prima facie found that though

there was specific objection about eligibility of

respondent no.2, tender of respondent no.2 was

accepted without looking into it. The parties were

directed to maintain status quo. The order continued to

operate and on 18/6/2004 petition came to be admitted

for final hearing.

    4)               The period for which work was to be allotted





                                        3                      wp5168.03

has expired way back in 2005. Therefore, by passage of

time, challenge is rendered infructuous. The writ

petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

                       JUDGE                                JUDGE




                                      
                                 
                                
    khj