M/S Anil Buildcon India Private Limited v. Municipal Corporation Bilaspur

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 3462 of 2017

1. M/s Anil Buildcon (India) Private Limited Flat No. 104, 1st Floor, Lovina Court, Mungeli Naka, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Acting In The Premises Through Its Director Shri Anil Kumar Verma, Son Of Shri Jagdish Verma, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 14/1152, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

2. Anil Kumar Verma S/o Shri Jagdish Verma, Aged About 60 Years Director M /s Anil Buildcon (India) Private Limited, Flat No. 104, 1st Floor, Lovina Court, Mungeli Naka, Bilaspur And Resident Of 14/1152, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondents :

Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, Judge Hon'ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge Order On Board Per P. Sam Koshy, J 19.12.2017

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed against the respondentMunicipal Corporation, Bilaspur questioning the cancellation of the Notice Inviting Tender (in short 'the NIT') No. 21 dated 29.08.2017. The nature of the NIT was for concrete work on parking and roads at Transport Nagar, Bilaspur.

2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner had participated in the NIT and he was found L1 by the Corporation. However, in between a complaint was made wherein it was alleged that the petitioner has not disclosed certain informations as was required under the tender document. Subsequently, on enquiry it was found to be true. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation has cancelled the tender and have decided to go for fresh tender.

3. At this stage learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation makes a statement that the petitioner herein has not been debarred from participating in the subsequent tender proceeding, he can fully participate on providing necessary information and if he is still found suitable, his case would be considered on its own merits.

4. At this juncture, this Court does not intend to go into the merits on the action on the part of the respondent as it is the exclusive prerogative of the respondents for the cancellation of the tender once when the complaint against the present petitioner was found to be true.

5. On the said statement by the Municipal Corporation, this Court does not intend to keep this petition pending any longer. Reserving the right of the petitioner to participate in the subsequent tender proceeding, the present Writ Petition stands disposed off.

6. This Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the subsequent tender, if any, published by the respondents.

7. Certified Copy today.

Sd/- Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Winter Holiday Judge Winter Holiday Judge Kishore