PIYUSH CHANDRAKAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the action of Respondent No.3 allegedly to be arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the clauses of tender notification (Annexure P/2) with the following prayers :

(2.) Facts of the case in nutshell are that, Respondent No.3 floated a tender notification for operation of vehicle stand at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital Campus, Raipur, for a period of two years. The last date for submission of the tender document was 30.07.2019 and opening date for tender was fixed as 30.07.2019. As per clause of tender document, the successful candidate will be the highest bidder (H-1). In the said tender proceeding, Petitioner and Respondent No.4 submitted their tender forms along with their technical and financial bids and upon opening of the financial bid, the Petitioner was found to be H-1. As per the case of the Petitioner, he was waiting for the orders of Respondent No.3 of accepting his bid, but on 08.08.2019, Respondent No.3 has sent a letter vide Annexure P/1 intimating that his bid was rejected on account of nondepositing of twelve months advance rent towards security deposit. The issuance of letter dated 08.08.2019 cancelling the bid of the Petitioner made him to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition, in which, it is pleaded that letter dated 02.08.2019 mentioned in Annexure P/1 has not been received by the Petitioner. Non-compliance with the direction of letter dated 02.08.2019 was the basis for cancellation of bid of the Petitioner.

(3.) Upon hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner notices were issued to Respondent No.4 on 24.09.2019. During the proceedings of case before this Court, when Respondent No.4 did not appear, this Court directed Respondents No.1 to 3 to intimate the Respondent No.4 about the pendency of writ petition to him. It was brought to the notice of this Court that they did not able to contact him and the medical social worker along with the vehicle driver went to the residential address mentioned in the tender document, but there also, Respondent No.4 was not available and his family members refused to accept the documents even after bringing to their knowledge that the documents are of the High Court. Subsequently, on the mobile number of Respondent No.4, the documents have been sent to him via social media on WhatsApp, proof of the same was produced along with the affidavit of one Medical Officer and the copy of postal receipt was placed on record of sending the documents through speed post. When, nobody appeared on behalf of Respondent No.4 on 09.12.2019 also, then this Court has injuncted Respondent No.4 from pursuing the work as per the work order issued by the Government and since then, the Government is operating the vehicle stand.