Muskan Dhebar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1320 Chatt

                                  1


                                                                   NAFR
       HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                   WPC No. 2847 of 2021

1. Muskan Dhebar, S/o late A.R. Dhebar, aged about 51 years, R/o
   Gobra Nawa Para, District-Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Raja Changel, S/o Yusuf Changel, aged about 51 years, R/o Gobra
   Nawa Para, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Manish Kosta, S/o Jhumuklal Kosta, aged about 39 years, R/o Gobra
   Nawa Para, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
                                                         ----Petitioners
                           VERSUS
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary Urban Administration and
   Development Department Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
   District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Director Urban Administration and Development Department
   Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
   Chhattisgarh

3. Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development Department,
   Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
   Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Gobra Naya Para, District
   Raipur Chhattisgarh

5. Rajendra Patre, Presently Chief Municipal Officer, Gobra Nayapara,
   District Raipur Chhattisgarh

6. Vihamgam Construction, its Proprietor Bal Krishna Sahu, Gobra
   Nayapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

7. Avi & Company, its proprietor Avi Chowdhary, Gobra Nayapara,
   district Raipur Chhattisgarh

8. Karan Trader, its proprietor Ravi Narwani, Gobra Nayapara, District
   Raipur Chhattisgarh

9. Shine Construction its proprietor MD. Ayub & MD Owais, Gobra
   Nayapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

10.Mehboob Changel, its proprietor Mehboob              Changel,   Gobra
   Nayapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

11.Resham Singh Mundal, its proprietor Resham Singh Mundal Gobra
   Nayapara District Raipur Chhattisgarh

12.Santosh Khadami Phingeshwar, its proprietor Santosh Khadami
   Phingeshwar, Gobra Nayapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

13.M.S. Builder, Bajaj Buildcon, Gariyaband

                                                      ------Respondents

For Petitioners : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate. For Respondents-State : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Dy. Adv. Gen.

Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board (proceedings through Video Conferencing)

Per Prashant Kumar Mishra, Acting CJ.

23/07/2021

1. The Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued by Municipal Council,

Gobra Nawapara on 15.06.2021, inviting tender for the subject 26

works for Rs. 157.34 Lac, to be submitted by 30.06.2021.

2. It is the stand of the petitioners that they were not allowed to

participate in the tender process in as much as even the tender

form was not supplied to them and petitioners request before the

superior authority also did not fructify. It is further contended that

the Municipal Council has acted in an arbitrary and irrational

manner by keeping the petitioners out of the tender process. It is

prayed in the writ petition that the petitioners be allowed to

participate in the tender process by providing them the tender

application form and further to direct the Municipal Council to

extend the date of opening of tender bid which was scheduled on

12.07.2021.

3. Admittedly, the present petition was preferred on 09.07.2021. The

next two days ie. 10th and 11th of July, 2021 being Saturday and

Sunday, the Court was closed. The writ petition came up for

hearing for the first time on 15.07.2021, on which date this Court

issued notices and posted the matter today ie. 23.07.2021 for

hearing on interim application.

4. Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for Respondents/ Municipal

Council, Gobra Nawapara, submits that the last date of submission

of tender form was 30th June, 2021. All the tender forms submitted

before the authority, on or before the said date, were subsequently

opened on 12.07.2021 and thereafter work order has already been

issued to the successful tenderer on 15.07.2021. It is on this date,

this petition was heard for the first time, meaning thereby that

before this date the Municipal Council was not aware about the

pendency of petition so that it can be alleged that the Municipal

Council went ahead with the tender process to frustrate the writ

petition.

5. From the documents filed along with the writ petition, it appears the

nature of work for which the tender was issued is for construction

of CC road in different wards of the Municipal Council. Thus, the

said work having already commenced, as stated by learned

counsel for the petitioners, the relief claimed in the writ petition

cannot be allowed at this stage. The issue as to who was or was

not responsible for denying the tender form to the petitioners has

rendered academic.

6. In view of the above, writ petition is dismissed.

                     Sd/-                                        Sd/-
          (Prashant Kumar Mishra)                       (Parth Prateem Sahu)
             Acting Chief Justice                              Judge


Pawan