WPC/1594/2013 of Amar Infrastructure Ltd. And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. on 20 December 2013

1. AmarInfrastructureLtd.,acompany duly incorporatedunder the relevant provisions ofthe Companies Act, 1956 havingitsofficeatMaheshNagar,t)urg, through its Director ShriNarendraRathi.sonofShriLalchandRathi,agedabout40residentofA/16,years,Mahesh Nagar, burg, Tahsil andOistrict Durg (CG)

2. NarendraRathi,sonofShriLalchandRathi,agedabout40DirectorM/sAmaryears,Infrastructure Ltd., resident ofA/16,MaheshNagar,Durg,Tahsil and District Durg.

Civi]<& Revenue bistrict Durg

VsRESPON&ENTS

If State of Chhattisgarh, throughtheSecretary,MinistryofPublicWorksDepartment,Mantralay,MahanadiBhawan,theSecretary,MinistryofPublicWorksDepartment,Mantralay,MahanadiBhawan,//Capital Complex, Naya Raipur.2. TheEngineer-in-Chief,Public/Works Department, Raipur (CG)/Works Department, Raipur (CG)3. TheChiefEngineer,PublicWorks Department, Raipur (C&)Works Department, Raipur (C&)4. TheSuper'intendingEngineer, o^

^

PublicWorksDepartment,Raipur (C6)

PETITION UN&ER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA

{T "^'%1~^%5^ .5it,^^'^yV^r^'

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CORAM:HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J.HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Writ Petition (C) NO. 1592 of 2013

PetitionersAmar Infrastructure Ltd and anotherVERSUSRespondentsState of Chhattisgarh and othere

2. Writ Petition (C) No. 1594 of 2013

PetitionersAmar Infrastructure Ltd and anotherVERSUSRespondentsState of Chhattisgarh and othereWrit Petitions underArticle 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Appearance: Smt. Renu Kochar, Advocate for the Petitioners.Shri UNS Deo, Govemment Advocate for the State/Respondents.

ORDER(20th December, 2013)

1. The Respondents invited tendere for construction of lanes.M/s AmarInfrastructureLimited(thePetitioner)wasapplicantinthesame.However, it was disqualified on the basis of letter dated 15.09.2013issuedby theChief Engineer,PubticWorksDepartment(PWD),Jagdalpur that the work is not proportionate to the time allowed.

2. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed representations before the Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, Raipur (Respondent-2).However, when no order waspassed[on][ its][ representations,][ it][ has][ filed][ this][ writ]petition.

3. We have heard counsel for the parties.

4. The letter dated 15.09.2013, issued by the Chief Engineer, PublicWorksCtepartment (PWD), Jagdalpur, on the basis of which thePetitioner's tender was rejected,[has][ already][ been]given[to][ it.]ThePetitioner has also filed[a][ representation][ on][ 04.10.2013][ before][ the]Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Raipur (Respondent-2).

Subbu

5. In view of above, Respondent-2 may decide the representation of thePetitioner dated 04.10.2013 by a speaking order, if possible, within threeweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Petitioner willalso file certified copy of this order, other necessary documents and dulystamped self-addressed envelope.The concemed Respondent aftertaking decision will communicate the same to the Petitioner.

6. We make it clear that till the representation of the Peh'tioner is notdecided, the tender will not be finalised and in case it has been finalisedthe work order will not be issued.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.

Sd/-Sd-/ChiefJusticeManindra Mohan ShrivastavaJudge